Criminal Law 1 Digests

(1)

LAW 109 : CRIMINAL LAW 1 DIGESTS LAW 109 : CRIMINAL LAW 1 DIGESTS LAW 109 : CRIMINAL LAW 1 DIGESTS LAW 109 : CRIMINAL LAW 1 DIGESTS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION

SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. LANTION[322 SCRA 160 (2000)][322 SCRA 160 (2000)] Nature:

Nature:Petition for review of a decision of the Manila RTCPetition for review of a decision of the Manila RTC Facts:

Facts:On June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice received fromOn June 18, 1999 the Department of Justice received from the Department of Foreign Affairs a request for the extradition of the Department of Foreign Affairs a request for the extradition of pri

privatvate e resrespondpondent Mark ent Mark JimJimeneenez z to to the U.S. the U.S. The Grand JuryThe Grand Jury Ind

Indictmictmentent, , the the warwarrant for rant for his his arrarrestest, , and and othother er supsupportportinging documents for said extradition were attached along with the request. documents for said extradition were attached along with the request. Charges include:

Charges include: 1 .

1 . C oC on sn sp ip ir ar ac y c y t o t o c oc om mm mi t i t o fo ff ef en sn se oe or tr to do de fe fr ar au d u d t ht he Ue USS 2

2.. AAtttteemmp t p t tto o eevvaad e d e oor r ddeeffeeaat t ttaaxx 3

3.. FFrraau d u d bby wy wiirree, r, ra da diioo, o, or tr teelleevviis is ioonn 4

4.. FFaallsse e ssttaatteemmeennt t oor r eennttrriieess 5

5.. E lE le ce ctti oi on cn co no nttr ir ib ub ut it io n o n i n i n n an am e m e o f o f a na no to th eh err The

The DepDepartartment of ment of JusJustice (DOJ)tice (DOJ), , thrthrough ough a a desidesignagnated ted panpanelel proceed

proceeded with ed with the technical evaluation and assessment of the technical evaluation and assessment of thethe extradition treaty which they found having matters needed to be extradition treaty which they found having matters needed to be add

addresressed. Responsed. Respondentdent, , thethen n reqrequesuested ted for for copicopies es of of all all thethe document

documents included in s included in the extraditthe extradition request and for ion request and for him to him to bebe given ample time to assess it.

given ample time to assess it.

The Secretary of Justice denied request on the ff. grounds: The Secretary of Justice denied request on the ff. grounds: 1 .

1 . H e H e f of ou nu nd id it pt pr er em am at ut ur e r e t o t o s es ec uc ur e r e h ih im cm co po pi ei es ps pr ir io r o r t o t o t ht hee completion of the evaluation. At that point in time, the DOJ is in completion of the evaluation. At that point in time, the DOJ is in th

the e prprococess ess of of evevalualuatating ing whwhetetheher r ththe e prprococededureures s andand require

requirements under ments under the relevant law the relevant law (PD 1069—Phi(PD 1069—Philippinelippine Extrad

Extradition Law) ition Law) and treaty (RP-US and treaty (RP-US ExtradExtradition Treaty) haveition Treaty) have been complied with

been complied with by the by the RequestRequesting Government. Evaluatioing Government. Evaluationn by the

by the DOJ of DOJ of the documents is not the documents is not a preliminary investia preliminary investigationgation like in

like in crimincriminal al cases making cases making the constitutiothe constitutionally guaranteednally guaranteed rights of the accused in criminal prosecution inapplicable. rights of the accused in criminal prosecution inapplicable. 2

2.. T hT he U . Se U . S. . rre qe qu eu es ts te d f oe d f or t hr t he p r ee p r evve ne nt it io n o f u no n o f u na ua ut ht ho ro ri zi ze de d disclosure of the information in the documents.

disclosure of the information in the documents. 3 .

3 . F iF in an al ll ly , cy , co uo un tn tr y r y i s bi s bo uo un d tn d to Vo Vi ei en nn na c oa c on vn ve ne nt it io n o n o n lo n la w oa w of f treat

treaties such that every treaty in force is ies such that every treaty in force is binding upon thebinding upon the parties.

parties. The

The resrespondpondent ent filefiled d for for petpetitiition on of of mandmandamusamus, , cercertiortiorariari, , andand proh

prohibiibitiontion. . The RTC The RTC of of NCR ruled in NCR ruled in favfavor or of of the respothe respondenndent.t. Secret

Secretary of ary of JustiJustice was ce was made to issue a made to issue a copy of the copy of the requestrequesteded papers, as well as conducting further proceedings.

papers, as well as conducting further proceedings. Issues:

Issues: 1.

1. WON prWON privivatate is re is resespopondndenent ent entititltled ted to tho the twe two bao basisicc due process rights of notice and

due process rights of notice and hearinghearing

Yes. §2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as “the removal of an Yes. §2(a) of PD 1086 defines extradition as “the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or

or govgovernmernment to ent to hold him hold him in connectin connection with ion with any criminany criminalal inv

investiestigatigation on dirdirecteected d agaiagainst nst him him in in connconnectection ion witwith h anyany criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty impos

penalty imposed on ed on him under the penal or him under the penal or criminacriminal law l law of theof the request

requesting ing state or state or governmgovernment.” Although ent.” Although the inquisitorialthe inquisitorial power exercised by the DOJ as an administrative agency due to power exercised by the DOJ as an administrative agency due to the failure of the DFA to comply lacks any judicial discretion, it the failure of the DFA to comply lacks any judicial discretion, it primarily sets the wheels for the extradition process which may primarily sets the wheels for the extradition process which may ult

ultimatimately result in ely result in the deprivthe deprivatiation on of of the libertthe liberty y of of thethe prospec

prospective extradittive extradite. e. This deprivatiThis deprivation on can be can be effecteeffected d at twoat two stages

stages: : The provisional arrest of The provisional arrest of the prospective extradithe prospective extraditete pending the submission of the request & the temporary arrest of pending the submission of the request & the temporary arrest of the prospective extradite during the pendency of the extradition the prospective extradite during the pendency of the extradition

petit

petition in ion in court. Clearcourt. Clearly, there’s an impending threat to aly, there’s an impending threat to a prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as during the evaluation prospective extraditee’s liberty as early as during the evaluation stage. Because of such consequences, the evaluation process is stage. Because of such consequences, the evaluation process is akin to

akin to an administratian administrative agency ve agency conducticonducting an ng an investinvestigativigativee proceed

proceeding, the ing, the consequeconsequences of nces of which are which are essentessentially criminalially criminal since such technical assessment sets off or

since such technical assessment sets off or commenccommences thees the pro

proceducedure re for & for & ultiultimatmately ely the deprivthe deprivatioation n of of libliberterty y of of aa prospec

prospective extradite. In tive extradite. In essenceessence, , theretherefore, the fore, the evaluatevaluationion process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. There process partakes of the nature of a criminal investigation. There are certain constitutional rights that are ordinarily available only are certain constitutional rights that are ordinarily available only in criminal prosecution. But the Court has ruled in other cases in criminal prosecution. But the Court has ruled in other cases that where

that where the investigatithe investigation on of of an an adminisadministrativtrative e proceedproceedinging may result in

may result in forfforfeiteiture of ure of liflife, e, libelibertyrty, , or or proproperperty, thety, the administrative proceedings are deemed criminal or penal, & such administrative proceedings are deemed criminal or penal, & such forfei

forfeiture partakes the nature of a ture partakes the nature of a penaltpenalty. In y. In the case at the case at bar,bar, similar to a preliminary investigation, the evaluation stage of the similar to a preliminary investigation, the evaluation stage of the extra

extradition proceeddition proceedings which may ings which may result in the filing result in the filing of anof an informa

information against the tion against the responrespondent, can dent, can possiblpossibly lead y lead to histo his arrest

arrest, & , & to the to the deprivdeprivation of ation of his liberty. Thus, the his liberty. Thus, the extradextraditeeitee mus

must t be be accoaccorderded d due procesdue process s rigrights of hts of notnotice & ice & heahearinringg according to A3 §14(1) & (2), as well as A3 §7—the right of the according to A3 §14(1) & (2), as well as A3 §7—the right of the peo

people to ple to infoinformarmatiotion n on on matmatterters s of of pubpublic concern & lic concern & thethe corollary right to access to official records & documents corollary right to access to official records & documents The court held

The court held that the evaluation process partakthat the evaluation process partakes of es of thethe nature of a criminal investigation, having consequences which nature of a criminal investigation, having consequences which will result in deprivation of liberty of the prospective extradite. A will result in deprivation of liberty of the prospective extradite. A favorable action in an extradition request exposes a person to favorable action in an extradition request exposes a person to eventu

eventual extradition to al extradition to a a foreigforeign n countrycountry, , thus exhibiting thethus exhibiting the penal aspect of the process.

penal aspect of the process. The evaluation process itself is likeThe evaluation process itself is like a preliminary investigation since both procedures may have the a preliminary investigation since both procedures may have the same result – the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent. same result – the arrest and imprisonment of the respondent. The basic rights of notice & hearing are applicable in criminal, The basic rights of notice & hearing are applicable in criminal, civil &

civil & adminisadministrativtrative e proceeproceedings. Non-observandings. Non-observance ce of of thesethese rights will invalidate the

rights will invalidate the proceedings. proceedings. Individuals are entitled Individuals are entitled toto be notified of any pending case affecting their interests, & upon be notified of any pending case affecting their interests, & upon notice, may claim the right to appear therein & present their notice, may claim the right to appear therein & present their side.

side.

Rights to notice and hearing: Dispensable in 3 cases: Rights to notice and hearing: Dispensable in 3 cases: a.

a. WhWhen theren there e is an is an ururgengent t neneed for ed for imimmemediadiate actite actionon (pr

(preveeventintive ve suspsuspensiension on in in admadminisinistratrativtive e charcharges,ges, padlocking filthy restaurants, cancellation of passport). padlocking filthy restaurants, cancellation of passport). b.

b. Where thWhere there is tentere is tentativenativeness of adminiess of administratistrative actiove action, & then, & the respondent isn’t prevented from enjoying the right to notice respondent isn’t prevented from enjoying the right to notice & hearing at a

& hearing at a later time (summalater time (summary distraint & levy of ry distraint & levy of thethe pro

properperty ty of of a a deldelinquinquent ent taxtaxpaypayer, er, repreplacelacement of ment of anan appointee)

appointee) c.

c. TwiTwin rightn rights have been offs have been offereered, but the rigd, but the right to exerht to exercisecise them had not been claimed.

them had not been claimed. 2.

2. WOWON tN thihis es entntititlelemement nt coconsnstititututetes a bs a brereacach oh of tf thehe leg

legal al comcommitmitmenments ts and and oblobligaigatiotion n of of the the PhiPhiliplippinpinee Government under the RP-US Treaty?

Government under the RP-US Treaty?

No. The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual concern about the No. The U.S. and the Philippines share mutual concern about the sup

supprespression sion and and punipunishmeshment nt of of cricrime me in in thetheir ir resrespecpectivtivee jurisdictions. Both states accord common due process protection jurisdictions. Both states accord common due process protection

to

to their respective citizens. The their respective citizens. The adminisadministratitrative ve investiinvestigationgation doesn’t fall under the three exceptions to the due process of doesn’t fall under the three exceptions to the due process of notice and hearing in the Sec. 3 Rules 112 of the Rules of Court. notice and hearing in the Sec. 3 Rules 112 of the Rules of Court. 3

3.. WWOON N tthheerree’’s s aanny y ccoonnfflliicct t bbeettwweeeen n pprriivvaattee respondent’s basic due process rights &

respondent’s basic due process rights & provisions of RP-provisions of RP-US Extradition treaty

US Extradition treaty

No. Doctrine of incorporation under international law, as applied No. Doctrine of incorporation under international law, as applied in most

in most countricountries, decrees that rules es, decrees that rules of internationof international law al law areare given equal standing with, but are not

given equal standing with, but are not superiosuperior to r to nationanationall legislative acts. Treaty can repeal statute and statute can repeal legislative acts. Treaty can repeal statute and statute can repeal treaty. No conflict. Veil of secrecy is lifted during trial. Request treaty. No conflict. Veil of secrecy is lifted during trial. Request should impose veil at any stage.

should impose veil at any stage. Judgment:

Judgment:Petition dismissed for lack of merit.Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Kapunan, separate concurring opinion:

Kapunan, separate concurring opinion: While the While the evaluatevaluationion pro

process conduccess conducted by ted by the DOJ the DOJ is is not exactnot exactly ly a a preprelimiliminarynary in

inveveststigigatation ion of of crcrimiminainal l cascaseses, , it it is is akakin in to to a a prprelelimiminainaryry investigation because it involves the basic constitutional rights of the investigation because it involves the basic constitutional rights of the person sought to

person sought to be extraditedbe extradited. . A A person ordered extradiperson ordered extradited isted is arrested, forcibly taken from his house, separated from his family arrested, forcibly taken from his house, separated from his family and delivere

and delivered to d to a foreign state. His rights of a foreign state. His rights of abode, to privacy,abode, to privacy, liberty and pursuit of happiness are taken away from him—a fate as liberty and pursuit of happiness are taken away from him—a fate as harsh and cruel as a conviction of a criminal offense. For this reason, harsh and cruel as a conviction of a criminal offense. For this reason, he is entitled to have access to the evidence against him and the he is entitled to have access to the evidence against him and the right to controvert them.

right to controvert them. Puno, dissenting:

Puno, dissenting:Case at bar does Case at bar does not involve guilt or innocencenot involve guilt or innocence of an accused but the interpretation of an extradition treaty where at of an accused but the interpretation of an extradition treaty where at stake is our government’s international obligation to surrender to a stake is our government’s international obligation to surrender to a foreign state a citizen of its own so he can be tried for an alleged foreign state a citizen of its own so he can be tried for an alleged offense committed within that jurisdiction.

offense committed within that jurisdiction. Panganiban, dissenting:

Panganiban, dissenting: InsInstant petittant petition ion refrefers ers only to only to thethe evaluation stage.

evaluation stage.

PESIGAN v. ANGELES

PESIGAN v. ANGELES[129 SCRA 174 (1984)][129 SCRA 174 (1984)] Nature:

Nature:Petition to review the order of the Caloocan City RTCPetition to review the order of the Caloocan City RTC Facts:

Facts:Anselmo and Marcelo Pesigan transporteAnselmo and Marcelo Pesigan transported in d in the evening of the evening of April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Camarines Sur April 2, 1982 twenty-six carabaos and a calf from Camarines Sur with Batangas as their destination. They were provided with three with Batangas as their destination. They were provided with three certificates: 1) a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian, certificates: 1) a health certificate from the provincial veterinarian, 2) permit to transfer/transport from the provincial commander; and 2) permit to transfer/transport from the provincial commander; and 3) three certificat

3) three certificates of es of inspectinspections. In ions. In spite of the spite of the papers, thepapers, the caraba

carabaos os were confiscatewere confiscated d by the by the provincprovincial veterinariaial veterinarian n and theand the town’s police station commander while passing through Camarines town’s police station commander while passing through Camarines Norte

Norte. . ConfisConfiscation was based cation was based on EO on EO No. 626-A which prohibitsNo. 626-A which prohibits transportation of carabaos & carabeef from one province to another. transportation of carabaos & carabeef from one province to another. Issue:

Issue: WON EO WON EO No. 626-ANo. 626-A, , proprovidviding ing for the for the confconfiscaiscation andtion and forfei

forfeiture by ture by the government of the government of carabaocarabaos s transpotransported from rted from oneone provinc

province to e to anotheranother, , dated October 25, 1980 dated October 25, 1980 is enforceable beforeis enforceable before publication in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982

publication in the Official Gazette on June 14, 1982 Held:

Held:No. The No. The said order isn’t enforceable against the Pesigans onsaid order isn’t enforceable against the Pesigans on April 2, 1982 because it’s a penal regulation published more than 2 April 2, 1982 because it’s a penal regulation published more than 2 mos. later in the OG. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter mos. later in the OG. It became effective only fifteen days thereafter as provided in A2 of the CC & §11 of the Revised Administrative as provided in A2 of the CC & §11 of the Revised Administrative Code. The word “laws” in article 2 includes circulars & regulations Code. The word “laws” in article 2 includes circulars & regulations which prescribe penaltie

which prescribe penalties. s. PublicaPublication is tion is necessarnecessary to y to apprise theapprise the public of the

public of the contentcontents of s of the regulationthe regulations & s & make the said penaltiesmake the said penalties binding on the persons affected thereby. Commonwealth Act No. 638 binding on the persons affected thereby. Commonwealth Act No. 638 requires that all Presidential EOs having general applicability should requires that all Presidential EOs having general applicability should be published in the OG. It provides that “every order or document be published in the OG. It provides that “every order or document which shall prescribe a penalty shall be

which shall prescribe a penalty shall be deemed to have generaldeemed to have general applicability and legal effect. This applies to a violation of EO No. applicability and legal effect. This applies to a violation of EO No.

626-626-A A because its confiscation & because its confiscation & forfeiforfeiture provision or ture provision or sanctiosanctionn makes it a penal statute. It results that they have cause of action for makes it a penal statute. It results that they have cause of action for

(2)

the recovery of the carabaos. The summary confiscation wasn’t in the recovery of the carabaos. The summary confiscation wasn’t in order. The recipients of the

order. The recipients of the carabacarabaos should os should return them to thereturn them to the Pesigans. However, they cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas Pesigans. However, they cannot transport the carabaos to Batangas because they are now bound by the said executive order. Neither because they are now bound by the said executive order. Neither can they recover damages. Doctor Miranda & Zenerosa acted in good can they recover damages. Doctor Miranda & Zenerosa acted in good faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos. faith in ordering the forfeiture and dispersal of the carabaos. Judgment:

Judgment:Order of dismissal and confiscation and dispersal of theOrder of dismissal and confiscation and dispersal of the carabaos, reversed and set aside. Respondents to restore carabaos, carabaos, reversed and set aside. Respondents to restore carabaos, with the requisite documents, to petitioners for their own disposal in with the requisite documents, to petitioners for their own disposal in Basud or Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No costs.

Basud or Sipocot, Camarines Sur. No costs. Important point:

Important point:PublicatPublication is ion is necessarnecessary to y to apprisapprise the e the public of public of the contents of the regulations & make the said penalties binding on the contents of the regulations & make the said penalties binding on the persons affected hereby. Justice & fairness dictate that the public the persons affected hereby. Justice & fairness dictate that the public must be informed of that provision by means of the publication on must be informed of that provision by means of the publication on the Gazette.

the Gazette.

TAÑADA v. TUVERA

TAÑADA v. TUVERA[136 SCRA 27 (1985)][136 SCRA 27 (1985)] Nature:

Nature:Petition to review the decision of the Executive Assistant toPetition to review the decision of the Executive Assistant to the President.

the President. Facts:

Facts: InvokInvoking the people’s right to ing the people’s right to be informed on matters of be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 public concern, a right recognized in Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 cons

constittitutiution, on, petpetitiitioneroners s seeseek k a a wriwrit t of of manmandamdamus us to to compcompelel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette, of

the Official Gazette, of various presidenvarious presidential decrees, letters of tial decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. The respondents would of implementation and administrative orders. The respondents would have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal have this case dismissed on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality to bring this petition. Petitioners maintain that since the personality to bring this petition. Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to comp

compel el pubpublic lic dutduty, y, thethey y neeneed d not show not show any any spespecificific c intintereerest.st. Respondents further contend that publication in the OG is not a sine Respondents further contend that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non

qua non requirrequirement for the ement for the effecteffectivity of laws ivity of laws where the lawswhere the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.

themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. Issue:

Issue:WON publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensableWON publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the PDs, LOIs, general orders, EOs, requirement for the effectivity of the PDs, LOIs, general orders, EOs, etc. where laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. etc. where laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. Held:

Held:Yes. It is the people’s right to be informed on matters of publicYes. It is the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern & corollarily access to official records, & to documents & concern & corollarily access to official records, & to documents & papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be afford

afforded the ed the citizecitizens subject to ns subject to such limitatiosuch limitation as n as may be may be providprovideded by law (§6 AIV, 1973 Constitution). Laws, to be valid & enforceable, by law (§6 AIV, 1973 Constitution). Laws, to be valid & enforceable, must be

must be publishpublished in ed in the OG the OG or otherwise effectivor otherwise effectively promulgateely promulgated.d. The fact that a

The fact that a PD or LOI states its PD or LOI states its date of effectividate of effectivity does notty does not preclud

preclude their e their publicapublication in tion in the OG the OG as they as they constitconstitute importantute important legisla

legislative acts. tive acts. The publication of The publication of presidepresidential issuances “of ntial issuances “of publicpublic nature” or “of general applicability” is a requirement of due process. nature” or “of general applicability” is a requirement of due process. Before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially Before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially informed of its contents.

informed of its contents. Judgment:

Judgment: Respondents ordered to publish in Official Gazette allRespondents ordered to publish in Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances of general application, and unless unpublished presidential issuances of general application, and unless so published shall have no binding force and effect.

so published shall have no binding force and effect. Impt Point:

Impt Point:It illustrates how decrees & issuances issued by oneIt illustrates how decrees & issuances issued by one man—Mar

man—Marcos—are in fact laws of cos—are in fact laws of gen’l applicatgen’l application & ion & providprovide fore for pena

penaltilties. es. The The consconstittitutiution on affaffordorded ed MarMarcos cos botboth h exeexecutcutive ive & & legislative powers.

legislative powers.

The generality of law

The generality of law (CC A14) will never (CC A14) will never work w/o constructivework w/o constructive notice. The ruling of this case provides the publication constitutes notice. The ruling of this case provides the publication constitutes the necessary constructive notice & is thus the cure for ignorance as the necessary constructive notice & is thus the cure for ignorance as an excuse.

an excuse.

Ignorance will not even mitigate the crime. Ignorance will not even mitigate the crime.

BOUIE v. COLUMBIA

BOUIE v. COLUMBIA[378 U.S. 347 (1964)][378 U.S. 347 (1964)] Nature:

Nature:Certiorari to the Supreme Court of South CarolinaCertiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina Facts:

Facts: 2 2 NegNegro collegro college e stustudendents took ts took seaseats in ts in a a boobooth th in thein the restau

restaurant dept of Eckerds & waited to be servedrant dept of Eckerds & waited to be served. . As they wereAs they were seated, the employee of the store put up a no tre

seated, the employee of the store put up a no trespassing sign. spassing sign. TheThe store mana

store manager called the poger called the police. lice. When the police arrivedWhen the police arrived, the, the manager asked them to leave but they

manager asked them to leave but they didn’t. didn’t. They were convictedThey were convicted by South Carolina SC on the grounds of resisting arrest & criminal by South Carolina SC on the grounds of resisting arrest & criminal trespass.

trespass. Petiti

Petitioners now contend that to oners now contend that to construe the statutconstrue the statute as e as such issuch is violative of due process clause since state has punished them for violative of due process clause since state has punished them for conduct which was not criminal at the time they have committed it. conduct which was not criminal at the time they have committed it. Issue:

Issue:WON petitioners were denied due process of law because theWON petitioners were denied due process of law because the statute failed to afford fair warning that the conduct for which they statute failed to afford fair warning that the conduct for which they have been convicted had been made a crime.

have been convicted had been made a crime. Held:

Held:DecisiDecision of the South Carolina SC was reveon of the South Carolina SC was reversed. rsed. The crimeThe crime for which these petitioners stand convicted was "not enumerated in for which these petitioners stand convicted was "not enumerated in the statute" at the time of their conduct. It follows that they have the statute" at the time of their conduct. It follows that they have been deprived of liberty and property without due process of law. been deprived of liberty and property without due process of law. To be

To be convictconvicted of ed of crimincriminal trespassing, the law al trespassing, the law statutstatute states:e states: “e

“entrntry y upon the upon the landlands s of of anotanother after notice from her after notice from the ownerthe owner prohibi

prohibiting such ting such entryentry.” .” The petitioneThe petitioners should rs should have first beenhave first been war

warned prior ned prior to enterito entering ng the restathe restauraurant nt that to that to do do so so woulwouldd constitute criminal

constitute criminal trespassing. trespassing. No prior No prior warning was warning was made. made. TheyThey were only asked to leave when they were inside. The South Carolina were only asked to leave when they were inside. The South Carolina SC construed the statute to cover also the

SC construed the statute to cover also the act of remaining on act of remaining on thethe premises of another after receiving notice to leave.

premises of another after receiving notice to leave. A criminal statute must give fair warning of

A criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that itthe conduct that it makes a crime. Since the statue was specific, there was no reason to makes a crime. Since the statue was specific, there was no reason to broaden its scope, for this is like an ex post facto law.

broaden its scope, for this is like an ex post facto law. Ex post facto law has two instances:

Ex post facto law has two instances: 1

1.. IIt m at m akke s ae s an a cn a ct it io n do n do no ne b ee b ef of or e tr e th e ph e pa sa ss is in g on g of t hf t he l ae l aw ,w , and which was innocent when done, criminal & punishes such and which was innocent when done, criminal & punishes such action.

action. 2

2.. IIt a gt a gg rg ra va va ta te s a ce s a crri mi me a ne a nd m ad m ak ek es i t gs i t grre ae at et er t hr t ha n ia n it w at w ass when committed.

when committed. When an

When an unforeseunforeseeable state-coeable state-court constructiourt construction n of a of a statutstatute e isis applie

applied d retroretroactivelactively and y and subjectsubjects s a a person to person to criminal liabilicriminal liability, itty, it deprives that person of due process in the sense of fair warning. deprives that person of due process in the sense of fair warning. Applying those principles to this case, we agree with petitioners that Applying those principles to this case, we agree with petitioners that 16-386 of the South Carolina Code did not give them fair warning, at 16-386 of the South Carolina Code did not give them fair warning, at the time of their conduct in Eckerd's Drug Store in 1960, that the act the time of their conduct in Eckerd's Drug Store in 1960, that the act for which they now stand convicted was rendered criminal by the for which they now stand convicted was rendered criminal by the statut

statute. By e. By its terms, the statute prohibiteits terms, the statute prohibited only d only "entry upon the"entry upon the lands of

lands of anotheranother…after notice from the …after notice from the owner…powner…prohibitrohibiting suching such entry…

entry…" There was " There was nothing in the statute to nothing in the statute to indicatindicate that it e that it alsoalso prohibited the different act of remaining on the premises after being prohibited the different act of remaining on the premises after being

asked to leave. Petitioner

asked to leave. Petitioners did s did not violate the statute as it not violate the statute as it waswas written; they received no notice before entering either the drugstore written; they received no notice before entering either the drugstore or the restaurant department. Indeed, they knew they would not or the restaurant department. Indeed, they knew they would not receive any such notice before entering the store, for they were receive any such notice before entering the store, for they were invite

invited to d to purchaspurchase everything except food there. So far e everything except food there. So far as theas the words of the statute were concerned, petitioners were given not only words of the statute were concerned, petitioners were given not only no "fair warning," but no warning whatever, that their conduct in no "fair warning," but no warning whatever, that their conduct in Eckerd's Drug Store would violate the statute.

Eckerd's Drug Store would violate the statute.

U.S. v. SWEET

U.S. v. SWEET[1 Phil. 18 (1901)][1 Phil. 18 (1901)] Nature:

Nature:Appeal from an order of the City of Manila CFIAppeal from an order of the City of Manila CFI Facts:

Facts: Sweet was employed by the Sweet was employed by the United StateUnited States military whos military who committed an offense against a POW. His case is filed with the CFI, committed an offense against a POW. His case is filed with the CFI, who is given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases for which a who is given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases for which a penalty of more than 6 months is imposed. He is now contending penalty of more than 6 months is imposed. He is now contending that the courts are without jurisdiction because he was “acting in the that the courts are without jurisdiction because he was “acting in the line of duty.”

line of duty.” Issues: Issues: 1.

1. WOWON tN thihis cs casase ie is ws witithihin tn the he jujuririsdsdicictition on of of ththe Ce CFIFI.. Yes. By Act No. 136 of the US-Phil Commission, the CFIs are Yes. By Act No. 136 of the US-Phil Commission, the CFIs are given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which a penalty given original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which a penalty more than 6

more than 6 months imprisomonths imprisonment or a nment or a fine greater than $100fine greater than $100 may be

may be imposedimposed. . FurtheFurthermore, CFIs have rmore, CFIs have jurisdjurisdiction to iction to trytry offende

offenders charged with rs charged with violatviolation of ion of the Penal Code the Penal Code within theirwithin their terri

territorial limits, regardletorial limits, regardless of ss of the military character of the military character of thethe accused

accused. The . The defendadefendant and nt and his acts are his acts are within the jurisdictwithin the jurisdictionion of the CFI because he failed to prove that he was indeed acting of the CFI because he failed to prove that he was indeed acting in the line of duty.

in the line of duty. 2.

2. WOWON aN an an assssauault lt cocommmmititteted bd by a sy a sololdidier er or or mimililitataryry employee upon a prisoner of war is not an offence under employee upon a prisoner of war is not an offence under the penal code?

the penal code?

Yes. Though assault by military officer against a POW isn’t in the Yes. Though assault by military officer against a POW isn’t in the RPC, physical assault charges may be pressed under the RPC. RPC, physical assault charges may be pressed under the RPC. 3.

3. AsAssusumiming ng ththat at it it is is an an ofoffefencnce ue undnder er ththe pe penenal al cocodede,, WON the

WON the milimilitary charactetary character r sustasustained by ined by the personthe person charged with the offence at the time of its commission charged with the offence at the time of its commission exemp

exempts ts him from him from the ordinarthe ordinary y jurijurisdictsdiction of ion of the civilthe civil tribunals?

tribunals?

No. The application of the general principle that the jurisdiction No. The application of the general principle that the jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special of the civil tribunals is unaffected by the military or other special char

charactacter er brobrought before them ught before them for for tritrial al (R.(R.A. A. No. No. 7057055).5). Appellant claims that the act was service connected. If this were Appellant claims that the act was service connected. If this were true, it may be used as a defense but this cannot affect the right true, it may be used as a defense but this cannot affect the right of the Civil Court to takes jurisdiction of the case.”

of the Civil Court to takes jurisdiction of the case.” Judgment:

Judgment:Judgment thereby affirmedJudgment thereby affirmed “An offense charged against a military office

“An offense charged against a military officer in r in consequeconsequence of nce of anan act done in obedience to an order is clearly shown on the face, act done in obedience to an order is clearly shown on the face, where such offense is against the military law, is not

where such offense is against the military law, is not within thewithin the jurisdiction of the courts of the Civil Government.”

jurisdiction of the courts of the Civil Government.” ––Per Cooper, J., concurring

––Per Cooper, J., concurring

SCHNECKENBURGER v. MORAN

SCHNECKENBURGER v. MORAN[63 Phil. 249 (1943)][63 Phil. 249 (1943)] Nature:

(3)