Criminal Law Lecture by Judge Marlo Campanilla

1. Characteristics of Criminal Law a. Generality -Basis: Article 2 of RPC; Article 40 of the CC which states that the law is obligatory to all persons living or sojourning in the Phils. -Issue: Unique characteristics of the person living or sojourning in the Phils.as in the case of a foreigner or a soldier, etc. b. Territoriality - Basis: Article 2 of RPC - Issue: The unique character of the place where the crime is committed as when it is committed in an embassy, foreign merchant vessel or in the high seas. Exceptions: This applies to both generality and territoriality 1. Public International Law as in the case of diplomatic immunity(ambassadors, chiefs of mission) unless the foreign country waives such immunity; This immunity does not extend to Commercial attach of the President and to consuls; only to political agents although consuls have consular immunity (Convention on the law on consular relation) as long as the offense committed is function-related. It was held that a consul who was driving a car recklessly is not function-related and therefore can be prosecuted for crimes which results from his recklessness. The same applies to grave oral defamation. (Liang vs. People) 2. Treaties of Treaty Stipulations (Conventions) as in the case of convention on the law on consular relation and VFA. The military court of the US has jurisdiction over crimes committed by military persons. Once you allow foreign military in the Phils, they are considered as extra territorial persons. E.G. Military vessels are not allowed to enter even the territorial waters of a coastal state. But once you allow them to enter and a crime is committed, we have no jurisdiction. The military vessel is considered as an extension of the territory of the flag state. Also, the officers of the Asian Development Bank have immunity provided the crime committed is function-related as held by the SC in a case of Grave oral Defamation (not function-related). 3. Laws of preferential application as in the case of RA 75 which punishes violation of the diplomatic immunity accorded to ambassadors, foreign ministers of their domestic servants. Apprehending these persons is a crime and penalized under this said law. But RA 75 is subject to the reciprocity rule. In order for them to assert such privilege, that privilege must also be accorded to our ambassadors and diplomatic officers.

In the US Constitution, citizens are allowed to bear firearms. For example, a US citizen bearing an American license carry firearm in the Phils. Can he raise the defense that he is a foreigner and that he has an American license? No, because of the principle of generality as long as he is living or sojourning in the Phis. The license contemplated by the law is the one issued by the PNP. Secondly, the American Constitution is not enforceable in the Phils. If a Filipino committed a crime outside the territory of the Phils., he is outside our jurisdiction because of the Principle of Generality. The basis of Generality is that the person must be living or sojourning in the territory of the Phils. Other exceptions to Generality are those provided in the Constitution regarding Parliamentary Immunity, Immunity from arrest and immunity from the suit of libel. During a time that a Senator is making defamatory speech, he cannot be sued for libel. Your remedy is to file a complaint with the Office of the Senate so that they can discipline the Senator not the court. Another is a case of a Muslim who was sued for bigamy. He raised the defense under their religious beliefs. The SC held that the defense is not tenable because of the Generality Principle. The penal law on bigamy is obligatory against a muslim. But there was a Pres. Decree passed which is the Code of Muslim Personal Laws. Under this law, the penal provision of bigamy shall not apply to a person married in accordance with the Muslim Law provided that the conditions under that said law are met. This is a law of preferential application. Another exception to Generality which is based on jurisprudence is the Executive Immunity as in the case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan. Provided however, that the two (2) conditions are met: 1. That the President is the encumbent president and 2. The crime must be functionrelated. In the said case, it was held by the SC that Plunder is not function-related and that he is no longer the sitting president. Other exceptions to territoriality: 1.Territoriality Principle: Reagan Vs. CIR, the place occupied by the foreign embassy in the Phils. is not the territory of the foreign state. It is still within the territory of the Phils. Furthermore, there is no court within the US embassy. It is absurd if a person still has to go to US in order to prosecute a crime committed against him inside the US embassy located in the Phils. In international Law, there is the principle of INVIOLABILITY of an EMBASSY. You are not allowed to serve a warrant inside the embassy without getting a waiver. However, it only ends there. If a crime is committed inside a foreign merchant vessel, there are three (3) principles involved. The FRENCH RULE, the ENGLISH RULE and the CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF THE SEA. Under the French Rule, crimes committed inside the foreign merchant vessel within the territory of a coastal state is within the jurisdiction of the flag state except if the commission of the crime affects the peace and order of the coastal state. This is more of the Nationality Principle. In English Rule, crimes committed inside a foreign merchant vessel within the territorial waters of the coastal state is within the jurisdiction of the coastal state except if it does not affect the peace and order of the coastal state or it merely involves the internal management of the foreign

merchant vessel or that it has no pernicious effect to the coastal state. Before, we adopted the English Rule. However, if this will be asked in the essay questions, this an opportunity for you to impress the examiner by mentioning the Convention of the Law of the Sea. We are a signatory of the convention of the law of the sea. There is no reason why we should not follow it. What is this law? General Rule is that the coastal state has no jurisdiction to investigate or to apprehend a person inside a foreign merchant vessel. The exceptions are: 1. If the commission of the crime extends to the coastal state; 2. If the master of the ship or the consular or diplomatic officer seek assistance from the coastal state; 3. If the crime committed affects the peace and order of the coastal state; 4. If it is necessary to suppress trafficking of Psychotropic substances or Narcotic Drugs. This is more akin to the French Rule. What is the scope of the English Rule and the Convention of the Law of the Sea? : 1.The crime must be committed inside a foreign Merchant Vessel. If the crime is committed inside a foreign military vessel or Public vessel, both the English Rule and the Convention of the law of the sea is not applicable. The crime is within the jurisdiction of the flag state because a foreign military vessel is considered as the extended territory of the flag state. 2. The foreign merchant vessel must be travelling or must be located within the territorial water of the coastal state. If the foreign merchant vessel is in the high seas, we have no jurisdiction. If the foreign merchant vessel s travelling in the Pasig River (National Water or Internal Water not territorial water), the applicable principle is the principle of territoriality. What is the archipelagic Doctrine? You will connect the outermost portion of the islands by an imaginary line and all waters embraced therein will be considered as national waters. So if the crime is committed inside the foreign merchant vessel which is within our national waters, you will neither apply the English Rule or the Convention of the law of the sea because there is no doubt that we have jurisdiction over the crime committed applying the principle of territoriality. The territorial water is the water between the national water and the high seas. To determine the extent of the territorial water, you have to measure 12 miles from the archipelagic line as indicated in the constitution. For example, a vessel is in Manila Bay, it is within our territorial water. Another is that smoking opium is held as with pernicious effect to the coastal state and therefore we have jurisdiction. For example, there is a foreign merchant vessel traversing the territorial water and there are dangerous drugs inside. Do we have jurisdiction? YES. Under the Dangerous Drugs Act, the possession, importation and transportation of dangerous drugs is punishable unlike in the old opium law where intent to unload is an element of importation. Under the Convention of the law of the sea, the coastal state has jurisdiction to apprehend or to conduct investigation inside the foreign merchant vessel for purposes of suppressing the importation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance even if the foreign merchant vessel is only traversing the territorial water. If bigamy is committed outside the Phils., we have no jurisdiction. However, may they be prosecuted for concubinage? Yes, if the crime is committed within the territory of the Phils.

2.Extraterritoriality Principle provided it falls within the five (5) instances mentioned in Article 2 of the RPC.This involves crimes committed outside the territory of the Phils.

The five (5) instances are as follows: a. THE CRIME IS COMMITTED INSIDE AN AIRSHIP OR AIRPLANE OF PHILIPPINE REGISTRY. Ownership is not important. What is important is the registration. In the case of hijacking, there are two kinds. One is the hijacking of an airship or airplane of Philippine Registry and the other is hijacking of airplane of foreign registry. In hijacking of Philippine Registry, the term used is usurping or seizing control or compelling the change of the destination or the course of the plane. In hijacking of airplane of foreign registry, it is the usurping or seizing control or compelling the pilot to land in the Philippine territory. In hijacking, intent to gain is not an element in contrast to piracy, carnapping and robbery. The essence is the usurping or seizing control. It partakes the nature of the crime of coercion. Another distinction of the two is that in hijacking of plane of Phil. Registry, flight is an element. The plane is considered in flight once all the exterior doors are closed after embarkation up to the time that any of the windows are opened for disembarkation. But if it involves airplane of foreign registry, flight is not an element. Third distinction is that in hijacking of Phil registry, the Principle of Extraterritoriality is applicable. Even if the airplane is travelling above the high seas or in a foreign state, if the plane is PAL or Cebu Pacific, we have jurisdiction. If it is foreign registry, what is applicable is the principle of territoriality (while it is in the territory of the Phils. is an element of this crime involving foreign registry). PIRACY UNDER P.D. 532 vs. RPC

-Committed on Philippine Water. However, Phil water or high seas in P vs. Tulin, SC held that it can be committed on the high seas. The SC in this case disregarded the elements of piracy under PD 532 and went on to apply ART. 2 of the RPC. It should have considered first the elements before considering whether the Phils. has jurisdiction under ART. 2 based on the principle of extraterritoriality -The pirate may be a Passenger, member of the Outsider complement or outsider -Intent to gain Intent to gain -Violence or intimidation or force upon Violence or intimidation but no Things are elements force upon things -In case of theft committed inside the FMV, we have no jurisdiction because of The crime is committed on a foreign merchant vessel on high seas. There is no more robbery on high seas. Only piracy as long as there is violence, intimidation or force upon things. In the absence of violence, intimidation or force upon things, it is plainly theft and we have jurisdiction because it is a foreign merchant vessel

in the high seas and theft is not one of those exceptions where the principle of extraterritoriality applies. b. FORGERY OR COUNTERFEITING OF COINS, CURRENCIES, OBLIGATIONS and SECURITIES OF THE PHILS. Our jurisdiction for the forgery/counterfeiting of foreign currency is subject to territoriality. It has to be committed in the Philippines in order for us to have jurisdiction. What is contemplated here is forgery or counterfeiting of Phil. Currency in a foreign country. c. INTRODUCTION INTO THESE ISLANDS OF THE FORGED OR COUNTERFEITED OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES. d. FUNCTION-RELATED CRIME COMMITTED WHILE A PUBLIC OFFICER Even if the crime committed is punishable under a special law, the principle of extraterritoriality can still be applied. In P. vs. Tulin, the crime committed is punishable under PD 532 but the SC applied article 2 of RPC. Article 2 is not confined to felonies but also to crimes punishable under special law. Example is Plunder. However in the case of direct bribery and corruption of Public official committed by a private individual, the public officer can be held liable for direct bribery because the crime is function-related, but the private individual cannot be held for corruption of public official because he is not a public official and that it is not function-related with respect to him. The principle of extraterritoriality does not apply to him. e. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY OR THE LAWOF NATIONS Rebellion is not included. This is a crime against public order. The crimes against national security and the law of nations are the following: 1. Piracy 2. Terrorism 3. Treason 4. Conspiracy to commit treason 5. Proposal to commit treason 6. Misprision of treason 7. Espionage 8. Inciting to war or giving motives of reprisals 9. Violation of neutrality 10. Correspondence with hostile country 11. Flight to enemys country 12. Mutiny 13. Qualified Piracy The Principle of Extraterritoriality under Article 2 of the RPC applies to all crimes against national security or the law of nations whether punishable under the RPC or under a special law. The only exception is the crime of Terrorism. The Special Law against Terrorism provides a

special provision for territoriality and extraterritoriality. Under the Terrorism Law, if the terrorism is committed in the Phils., the Phils. has jurisdiction. Secondly, if it is committed on the airship or airplane of Philippine Registry, we have jurisdiction. The unique feature of this law is that if terrorism is committed inside the Philippine embassy, we have jurisdiction. The general rule is the principle in the Reagan case that if a crime is committed inside the US embassy in the Phils., the Philippines has jurisdiction and vice versa. However, this is the exception. In the case of terrorism, even if the crime is committed in the Philippine Embassy in a foreign country, the Philippines has jurisdiction under the terrorism law. Another exception is that if the hatching of the conspiracy to commit terrorism in the Phils. is done outside the Philippines, the Phils. still has jurisdiction. We can apprehend them in the Phils. even if the conspiracy was committed outside. Another is that when terrorism is directed against a Filipino citizen or a person of Filipino descent and ethnicity or citizenship was considered as a factor in the commission of terrorism. PROSPECTIVITY As a general rule, the law is given prospective except if the law is favorable to the accused who is not a habitual offender. There are three rules involving prospectivity: 1. RPC- Article 21, 22 2. The Rule: NULUM CRIMEN NULLU POENA SINE LEGE 3. Constitutional Prohibition against EX POST FACTO LAW No. A penal law is prospective in character. Therefore, the cyber crime law, being a penal law, must be givena prospective application. Furthermore, under the Principle ofNULUM CRIMEN NULLU POENA SINE LEGE, there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. At the time that the act was committed, there is no law punishing cyber crime. A law which is passed decriminalizing vagrancy must be given retroactive effect because of the rule on NULUM CRIMEN NULLU POENA SINE LEGE. Even if the accused is a habitual vagrant, the law must still be given retroactive application as the act of vagrancy ceased to be a crime upon the passage of the law decriminalizing it. It is the intention of the law-makers not to punish vagrancy. The rule applicable in this case is not Article 22 of the RPC but the rule that there is no crime when there is no law punishing it. The same applies in the case of prostitution if ever a law would be passed decriminalizing it. If the new law is silent, then apply Article 22. However, if the law expressly provides prospectivity or retroactivity, the applicable rule is not Article 22 but the constitutional limitation on ex post facto law. Article 22 is not a limitation to the power of Congress to legislate. The only limitation to the power of Congress to enact laws is the constitutional provision on ex post facto law. Congress can expressly provide retroactivity or prospectivity subject to this constitutional provision. If the new law passed expressly provides prospectivity, whether favorable or unfavorable, that is constitutional. It does not offend the constitutional provision against ex post

facto law. If the law expressly provides for retroactivity, its constitutionality will depend on whether the law is favorable or unfavorable to the accused. If it is favorable, then it is constitutional. But if it is unfavorable, then it is unconstitutional. It is an ex post facto law. TOTAL REPEAL- The essence of total repeal is decriminalization. The effect is that the court will lose jurisdiction to try and convict the accused for a crime committed in violation of a repealed law. There is no penalty for a crime committed in violation of a repealed law applying the principle of NULUM CRIMEN NULLU POENA SINE LEGE. The court loses authority to try, convict, and penalize the accused for committing a decriminalized act. PARTIAL REPEAL-The essence is amendment. It is a repeal with reenactment. The essence is amendatory. It is not really a repeal but to introduce regulations. The intention is not to decriminalize because the repeal is with reenactment. The accused will still be prosecuted under the old law despite the repeal. The effect therefore is that the court will not lose jurisdiction to try and convict the accused under the old law. Can he be penalized under the new law? It depends. If the new law is favorable, he will be prosecuted under the new law. But if it neither favorable nor unfavorable, he will be penalized under the old law. GENERAL CONCEPTS: FELONY.An act or omission punishable under the RPC. OFFENSE.Whether punishable under the RPC or under a Special Law. But for purposes of discussion, the word offense refers to crimes punishable under special laws. ART 3 of RPC: There are two (2) kinds of felony: 1. Intentional Felony- dolo; with malice 2. Culpable Felony- Negligence; imprudence Is CULPA a crime or a mode of committing a crime? In the Yvler Case, the REYES view is prevailing. In the ORTEGA view which is the old view, when you cause damage to ones property with dolo, the crime committed is malicious mischief. But if you commit a crime without culpa, the resulting crime is reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property. However, if we follow this view, several crimes may be committed with a single CULPA. Death, damage to property or physical injuries may be committed with a single culpa of recklessly driving a car. Even if there are three crimes, you have to apply the law on complex crimes in article 48 of the RPC. The only exception is when there is a light felony as a result of culpa as in the case of slight physical injury. Under the RPC, a light felony cannot be made a component of a complex crime under ART 48. The REYES view is that the basis is ART 365 of the RPC on Imprudence and Negligence which is in itself the crime not just a mode of committing the crime. What is punishable is the execution of negligent or imprudent act. CULPA is the crime. Regardless of the number of deaths, injuries or damage, there is only one crime. These are only material in deciding what penalty to impose. Double jeopardy can set in.

INTENTIONAL FELONY: malice; criminal intent. Dolo is the general element of the crime. At the time of codification of the RPC, the intention is to codify into one all mala inse (committed by means of dolo or malice) crimes. There are two (2) kinds of criminal intent: 1. General Intent. This is the dolo. The criminal intent 2. Specific Intent. Specific in a crime like intent to gain, intent to kill. There are two (2) kinds of specific intent: a. Express as in theft b. Implied as in homicide Even if the specific intent is present if the general intent is not present, the accused will be acquitted (P v. Ah Chiong). In this case mistake of fact coupled with a justifying circumstance of self-defense is the best example of the presence of specific intent but not the general intent. Absence of general intent negates dolo. HAZING: P. v. Villareal HOMICIDE VS. HAZING malum prohibitum dolo is not an element The act of inflicting injury is prohibited Death does not consummate the act. It is merely considered in determining the degree of penalty.

Malum inse Dolo is an element The act of killing is what is prohibited Death of the victim consummates the act

PRAETER INTENTIONEM (ART. 4 of RPC)). Mitigating circumstance is appreciable in Homicide but not in anti-hazing law The basis of criminal liability is actual/ Conspiratorial participation The basis of criminal liability are the ff: a. Actual participation b. Presumed participation (Presence) c. Presence of an adviser (P v. Atienza) d. Presence of an officer, ex-officer or alumni who participated in the planning is liable as Principal (Veloya Case) even if you did not perform an act in furtherance of hazing. This is an exception to the general rule in conspiracy. e. Knowledge as when the act was performed in the house of one of the members or officers and you are the parent of the said member or officer and you failed to perform an act to prevent the commission of hazing. This is another exception to the general rule that knowledge/approval alone cannot be the basis of criminal liability.