CONFLICTS OF LAW:TORTS

AND CRIME

ALICIA CONSULTA BURNT EDMOND SANTOS

AUDREY DE GUZMAN CHRISTINE VALENZUELA
ROXANNE GAYLE HUAN
CONCEPT OF TORT AND LEX LOCI
COMMISSI
DEFINITION

 Anglo-American Law
- no distinction between tort and delict
 Philippine Internal Law
- mixed of both civil and Anglo-American
 Civil law
-is a common law term, no particular equivalent in civil law
TORT VS CRIME

TORT CRIME
Considered a wrong Also considered a wrong
Committed against a private person Committed against the State
TORT VS. DELICT

Tort Delict
Quasi-delict
No intention or fault, liability was imposed Intentional injuries, subject to the laws of
on grounds of expediency the place where it was committed
 PRINCIPLE OF LEX LOCI DELICTI COMMISSI

 A. Definition
 Principle of the place of wrong
1. A person owes obedience to the law of the country in which he is
actually present
2. State where the injury
 B. Place of Wrong
- Where both the act and the injury occurred
- Traditional Rule
- Present Day Society: by counting on the laws of the State where he
acts
- American Law
 C. Revolt against the rule of lex loci delicti commissi
 Prof. Stumberg’s view
 Restatement Method
SS LOTUS CASE
 FACTS:
 On Aug. 2, 1926 there was a collision on the high sees between the
French mail steamer, Lotus and the Turkish collier, Boz-Kourt II. The
said Turkish collier sank where eight Turkish nationals died. On August
2 the Lotus arrived in Constantinople, where the Turkish authorities
proceeded to hold an inquiry about the said collision.
 They instituted a joint criminal proceeding in accordance with the
Turkish law against the captain of the Boz-Kourt II, and the officer on
watch on board the Lotus at the time of the collision, Lieutenant
Demons, a French Ciitzen in charge of manslaughter.The case was
first heard on August 28, 1926 before the Criminal court of Istanbul.
The latter’s objection to the jurisdiction of the court was overruled.
 On Sept. 15, the criminal court of Istanbul sentenced Demons to
imprisonment for a short term.The proceedings had been instituted in
pursuance to Turkish legislation. According to the French Governemnt, the
criminal court claimed jurisdiction under Article 6 of the Turkish Penal
Code.
 Thereafter, the French Government protested against the arrest and
against the assumption of jurisdiction by the Turkish Court.Through a
special agreement, signed at Geneva on Oct 12, 1926 between both
governments and filed with the Registry of the Court in accordance with
Art. 40 of the statute and Art. 35 of the rules of court, the latter
submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice the question of
jurisdiction that had arisen between them as a result of the collision
ISSUE

 Does a rule of international law which prohibits a state from exercising

criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of
the state’s national jurisdiction exist
RULING

 The Court, having arrived at the conclusion that the arguments advanced
by the French Government either are irrelevant to the issue or do not
establish the existence of a principle of international law precluding
Turkey from instituting the prosecution which was in fact brought against
Lieutenant Demons, observes that in the fulfilment of its task of itself
ascertaining what the international law is, it has not confined itself to a
consideration of the arguments put forward, but has included in its
researches all precedents, teachings and facts to which it had access and
which might possibly have revealed the existence of one of the principles
of international law contemplated in the special agreement.
 The result of these researches has not been to establish the existence of
any such principle.
 It must therefore be held that there is no principle of international law,
within the meaning of Article 15 of the Convention of Lausanne of July
24th, 1923, which precludes the institution of the criminal proceedings
under consideration.
 Consequently, Turkey, by instituting, in virtue of the discretion which
international law leaves to every sovereign State, the criminal proceedings
in question, has not, in the absence of such principles, acted in a manner
contrary to the principles of international law within the meaning of the
special agreement.
 Since no principle exists establishing the exclusive criminal jurisdiction of
the law of the flag in cases of collision upon the high seas, we are faced
with two concurrent jurisdictions.
 Consequently, each of these jurisdictions may take effect within the limits
of its natural sphere of operation - namely within its own territorial area -
upon foreigners who are there and may also therefore apply to them such
municipal law as each State may have adopted by virtue of that freedom
which no other principle of international law prevents them from
exercising in this respect.
SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES VS. COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
 Milagros P. Morada is a flight attendant for petitioner SAUDIA airlines,
where the former was tried to be raped by Thamer and Allah AlGazzawi,
both Sauidi nationals and fellow crew member, after a night of dancing in
their hotel while in Jakarta, Indonesia. She was rescued. After two weeks
of detention the accused were both deported to Saudi and they were
reinstated by Saudia.
 She was pressured by police officers to make a statement and to drop the
case against the accused; in return she will then be allowed to return to
Manila and retrieved her passport. For the second time, she was asked by
her superiors to again appear before the Saudi court.
 Without her knowledge, she was already tried by Saudi court together
with the accused and was sentenced to five months imprisonment and to
286 lashes in connection with Jakarta rape incident. The court found her
guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the
music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in
contravention of Islamic tradition.
 ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT the QC Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear
and try the civil case based on Article 21 of the New Civil Code or the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia court though there is the existence of foreign
element.
 RULING:
 The forms in which a foreign element may appear are many, such as the
fact that one party is a resident Philippine national, and that the other is a
resident foreign corporation. The forms in which this foreign element may
appear are many.The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that
one of the parties to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or
that a contract between nationals of one State involves properties
situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign element may assume
a complex form. In the instant case, the foreign element consisted in the
fact that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine national, and
that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation.
 Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner SAUDIA as a
flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of travel across
national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
and vice versa, that caused a “conflicts” situation to arise.
 The forms in which a foreign element may appear are many, such as the fact that
one party is a resident Philippine national, and that the other is a resident
foreign corporation.The forms in which this foreign element may appear are
many.The foreign element may simply consist in the fact that one of the parties
to a contract is an alien or has a foreign domicile, or that a contract between
nationals of one
 State involves properties situated in another State. In other cases, the foreign
element may assume a complex form. In the instant case, the foreign element
consisted in the fact that private respondent Morada is a resident Philippine
national, and that petitioner SAUDIA is a resident foreign corporation.
 Also, by virtue of the employment of Morada with the petitioner SAUDIA as a
flight stewardess, events did transpire during her many occasions of travel across
national borders, particularly from Manila, Philippines to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia,
and vice versa, that caused a “conflicts” situation to arise.
 Where the factual antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign
element, the problem could present a “conflicts” case. Where the factual
antecedents satisfactorily establish the existence of a foreign element, we agree
with petitioner that the problem herein could present a “conflicts” case. A
factual situation that cuts across territorial lines and is affected by the diverse
laws of two or more states is said to contain a “foreign element.” The presence
of a foreign element is inevitable since social and economic affairs of individuals
and associations are rarely confined to the geographic limits of their birth or
conception.
MODERN THEORIES AND RULES ON
TORT LIABILITY
THE GERMAN RULE OF ELECTIVE
CONCURRENCE

The civil law rule tort liability should be governed by the law of the place
where the actor executes the act suffered an early setback in the hands of
the German Reichsgericht. The German Supreme Court ruled that a tort is
committed in both the place where the actor engages in his conduct and in
the place where the effects of his conduct occur.
The injured person may choose to sue under one law or the other; he can
elect the law most advantageous to his demand, but he is not permitted to
cumulate the benefits flowing from more than one law. Under this approach,
“a place of tort is assumed to be wherever an essential part of the tort has
been committed.”
THE “STATE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP”
RULE;THE SECOND RESTATEMENT OF 1969

 The original Restatement maintained that, except in a few cases, all

substantive questions relative to the existence of a tort claim are
governed by the law of the “place of wrong”, the lex loci delicti commissi,
which was equated with “the state where the last event necessary to
make an actor liable for an alleged tort takes place.”
 The state of “the last event” is the State where the injury occurred. This
rule is derived from the vested rights doctrine, called for the enforcement
everywhere of the tort right that had been created in the place of injury.
In determining the State which has the most significant relationship, the
following contacts are to be taken into account and evaluated according to
their relative importance with respect to the particular issue:
 the place where the injury occurred;
 the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred;
 the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of
business of the parties, and
 the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered.
The Second Restatement lays down separate rules for different torts and
for different issues in tort; the identity of the State of the most significant
relationship depends upon the nature of the tort and upon the particular
issue. Thus, the place of injury is of particular importance in cases of
personal injuries and of injuries to tangible things, in false imprisonment,
malicious prosecution and abuse of process. Here, the principal location of
the defendant’s conduct may have the greatest weight.
Where there is a relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and
when the injury was caused by an act done in the course of the relationship,
the place where the relationship is centered or has its seat may be the
decisive contact.
The Second Restatement method, however, has been criticized by a number
of eminent scholars. The burden of criticism is that the “most significant
relationship” test begs the question. Whether or not a particular contact
with a State is significant for conflicts purposes cannot be known until one
first knows exactly what domestic tort rules are in conflict and what the
policies underlying those rules are.
THE STATE-INTEREST ANALYSIS

The government or state-interest analysis was initiated by Prof. Brainers

Currie, and adopted by a number of courts. It is a radical departure from
the usual method of solving problems, which has been described as the
“blindfold test.”
The traditional method in most legal systems, including the Philippines, is to
classify a conflicts problem under its proper category—such as tort,
contract, property, succession, or family relations—then identify the
appropriate connecting factor or point of contact, such as the place of
wrong, or locus delicti in case of torts, and finally apply its law without
further inquiry into its purposes or underlying policies.
The original American Restatement adopted and championed this usual
method, finding it most congenial to the vested rights theory. But many
leading writers and jurists, exposed the injustice and the absurdity of the
traditional method and the vested rights theory upon which the original
Restatement was based.
Having systematically destroyed the whole system, the critics found it
necessary to formulate a new method of solving problems in the Conflict of
Laws. One such method is the government or state-interest analysis
advanced by Prof. Currie which includes all the relevant concerns that a
State may have in issue, not only as a sovereign in a set of facts or an entity
but as a repository of justice.
HOW STATE-INTEREST ANALYSIS APPLIES TO TORT
PROBLEMS:

The first step is to separate false or spurious conflicts from true conflicts.
There is false or spurious conflict when two or more States—having some
connection with the event or the parties—have tort rules pointing to
different results, but upon analysis of the purposes underlying the divergent
rules, it becomes apparent that the purpose of only one of them would be
advanced by its application in the case.
 If the problem poses a real conflict between the interest of two or more
States having some connection the event or the parties, Prof. Currie
makes a distinction between an interested forum and a disinterested
forum.
 Where the forum can reasonably assert an interest in the application of
its law and policy, as against the interest of another States, the forum
should apply its own internal law. An interested forum should take
account of the law of the other State and its interest in having it applied
in order to properly decide the reach of the forum’s own law.
Where the forum is a disinterested forum—an occurrence Prof. Currie
describes as “extremely rare” in the United States—the court, confronted
by a conflict between the laws of two other States, should generally dismiss
the case on ground of forum non conveniens.
In short, the conflict is, in many cases an avoidable conflict, and the plaintiff
should be allowed to select a more appropriate forum of his choice. But
where the conflict is unavoidable in the sense that it must discharge its duty
to decide the case before it, the disinterested forum should reach a decision
that it thinks “Congress would reach if it were to consider the matter.”
CAVER’S PRINCIPLES OF PREFERENCE

When a State, as in the case of the Philippines, has no codal or statutory

provision as to the law that should regulate the question of tort liability in
conflicts cases, its courts should be guided by certain rules or principles in
determining which of the conflicting rules of two or more affected States
should apply to an alleged tort, in every case where there is a true,
unavoidable conflict. Lacking such rules or principles of preference, courts
within a State would be left without any compass and every decision would
be an ad hoc decision, thereby creating what has been fugitively called a
“free law” jurisprudence.
Prof. David Cavers advocated certain principles of preference in the field of
torts. These principles of preference are to be used by courts as guides for
decision, when there is no statutory rule applicable and the conflict
between competing laws is neither false nor avoidable.
The four suggested principles in the area of torts are:
 Where the liability laws of the State of injury set a higher standard of conduct or
of financial protection against injury than do the laws of the State where the
person causing the injury has acted or has his home, the laws of the State of injury
should determine the standard and the protection applicable to the case, at least
where the person injured was not so related to the person causing the injury that
the question should be relegated to the law governing their relationship.
 Where the liability laws of the State in which the defendant acted and caused
injury set a lower standard of conduct or of financial protection than do the laws
of the home State of the person suffering the injury, the laws of the State of
conduct and injury should determine the standard of conduct or protection
applicable to the case, at least where the person injured was not so related to the
person causing the injury that the question should be relegated to the laws
governing their relationship.
 Where the State in which a defendant has acted has established special controls,
including the sanction of civil liability, over conduct of the kind in which the
defendant was engaged when he caused a foreseeable injury to the plaintiff in
another State, the plaintiff, though having no relationship to the defendant,
should be accorded the benefit of the special standard of conduct, even though
the State of injury had imposed no such controls or sanctions.
 Where the law of the State in which a relationship has its seat has imposed a
standard of conduct or of financial protection on one party to that relationship
for the benefit of the other party which is higher than the like standard imposed
by the State of injury, the law of the former State should determine the
standard of conduct or financial protection applicable to the case for the benefit
of the party protected by the State’s law.
PHILIPPINE CONFLICTS RULE ON
TORT LIABILITY
PHILIPPINE CONFLICT RULE OF TORT
LIABILITY
 The Philippines have no codal or statutory provision regarding tort
liability which is affected by the law of two or more States.
 Nor are there any cases addressing the matter
 Such absence of case law may be attributed to the geographical and legal
condition of the Philippines
 Torts always gives rise to personal action, thus under the Rules of Court,
the Regional Trial Court where the defendant or defendants reside or can
be found, or where the plaintiff or any of them resides at the election of
the plaintiff shall have jurisdiction over the case.
 According to Sen. Salonga, a Philippine Court should face up to the
conflict, and resolve the conflict by the following method:
 First, ascertain the weight and purpose underlying the tort law of the forum
as applied to the particular case
 Second, examine and weigh the interest of the other State
 If the Philippine court finds that the Philippines has a substantial
connection with the parties or operative facts and that our internal law on
torts embodies a social or economic policy which will be advanced by its
application to the case
 On the other hand if the courts find that the Philippines has no concern
or interest in the application of its in the application of its internal law, but
that the other State.
 The court should not blindly apply a mechanical rule; it should examine
the facts and weigh the interest of the affected States.
 The State where the injury is inflicted has usually an interest in
compensating the injury.The place of injury is particularly important in
the case of injuries which involve either physical harm or mental
disturbance, or in case of false imprisonment or malicious prosecution.
 The State where the actor initiated or carried out the act causing the
harm or injury has an interest in regulating the conduct of persons found
in its territory.
 Where the injury occurs in two or more different States, or when the
place of injury is not easily ascertainable or is fortuitous, and bears little
relation to the occurrence of and the parties , the place where the
defendant carries out the act may be given decisive weight
 The other state has an interest in the application of its laws and policy,
and the forum should resolve the conflict by applying the law of the other
State.
 Prof. Weintraub points out that the analysis of a conflicts problem from
the point of view of the interest of various contact States should not be
used for the preconceived notion of applying the law of the forum or for
making the plaintiff win his case.
ENFORCEMENT OF CLAIM FOR
FOREIGN TORT
ENFORCEMENT OF CLAIM FOR FOREIGN
TORT

 As a general rule, an action for a foreign tort, like any other personal
action, may be brought in any place where the defendant may be served
with process or is subject to suit.
 By way of exception, Anglo-American law consider the action of trespass
to foreign realty an exception to the general rule.
 Skinner v. East India Co
 Plaintiff cannot obtain relief in the courts of England for the
dispossession of his house and land in the Indies. This doctrine became a
leading rule in England and was subsequently adopted by majority of
American courts.
 Opposition to this exception is now recognized by writers and courts
 They believe that the action for damages; the determination of the
foreign title for the purposes of the suit is the merely incidental
determination of a fact that such court are every day compelled to
make.
CONDITIONS OF ENFORCEMENT
CONDITIONS OF ENFORCEMENT OF A TORT
RIGHT

 An action for an alleged foreign tort which is transitory may nevertheless be

refused enforcement in some case.
 Where the foreign tort is penal in nature, a State will generally refuse to enforce
penalties imposed by another State.
 Where the enforcement of the tort right would infringe infringe the public policy
of the forum, an obstacle which may be presented in practically all conflict
problems.
 All law is an expression of policy whether a particular foreign rule falls under
the ban is a matter of opinion which can easily become a matter of whim.
 Where the local judiciary machinery is adequate for its proper
enforcement
 Slater v. Mexican National Railway
 In order that a foreign tort right may be enforced in the forum, the claim
should not be penal in its nature, it's enforcements should not violate the
public policy of the forum, and the local judicial machinery should be
adequate for the purpose of enforcement.
TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM ACTS OF
OFFICIAL TORTURE
TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM ACTS OF OFFICIAL TORTURE

 “The crucial question that has

confronted American courts is
whether officials may be held liable
for damages in tort suits filed
against them in the United States
for acts of torture allegedly
committed by them or by their
subordinates against political
detainees or prisoners in their home
countries, in violation of
international law and municipal
law.”
 TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM ACTS OF OFFICIAL TORTURE :
JURISPRUDENCE

FILARTIGA V. PENA-IRALA, COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT, 30 JUNE 1980

ISSUES:
1. Whether act of torture is part of international concern, thus, under the customary
international law?
II. Whether a violation of the law of nations arises only when there has been “ a
violation by one or more individuals of those standards, rules or customs if (a)
affecting the relationship between states or between an individual and a foreign state
and (b) used by those states for their common good and/or in dealing per se”
 The law of nations “may be ascertained by consulting the works of jurists, writing professedly on public law; or by the
general usage and practice of nations; or by judicial decisions recognizing and enforcing that law.”
 The Court emphasized the ruling in The Paquete Habana which reaffirmed that where there is no treaty, and no controlling
executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations; and as
evidenced of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, who by years of labor, research and experienced, have
made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial
tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the
law really is.
 The Court ruled that although there is no universal agreement as to the precise extent of the human rights and fundamental
freedoms guaranteed to all by the charter, there is at present no dissent from the view that the guaranties include, at a bare
minimum, the right to be free from torture. This prohibition has become part of customary international law, as evidenced and
defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
 Likewise, the Court having examined the sources from which customary international law is derived the usage of nations,
judicial opinion and the works of jurists, the Court concluded that official torture is now prohibited by the law of nations.
The prohibition is clear and unambiguous, and admits of no distinction between treatment of aliens and citizens.

RULING OF THE COURT ISSUE NO 1: Whether act of torture is part of international

concern, thus, under the customary international law?
 The Court stated “the sphere of domestic jurisdiction is not an irreducible sphere
of rights which are somehow inherent, natural, or fundamental. It does not
create an impenetrable barrier to the development of international law. Matters
of domestic jurisdiction are not those which are unregulated by international law, but
those which are left by international law for regulation by States. There are, therefore,
no matters which are domestic by their “nature”. All are susceptible of
international regulation and may become the subjects of new rules of customary
law of treaty obligations.”

ISSUE NO 2: Whether a violation of the law of nations arises only when

there has been “ a violation by one or more individuals of those
RULING OF THE COURT standards, rules or customs if (a) affecting the relationship between states
or between an individual and a foreign state and (b) used by those states
for their common good and/or in dealing per se”
 TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM ACTS OF OFFICIAL TORTURE :
JURISPRUDENCE

IN RE ESTATE OF FERDINAND MARCOS (25 F.3D 1467, JUNE 16, 1994.)

ISSUE: Is the Estate of Marcos liable for the tortured victims?

 Yes. The Alien Tort Act, enacted as part of the First Judiciary Act of 1789, provides: The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United
States.
 The US SC also rejected the Estate's argument that international law does not provide a basis for federal court
jurisdiction under Sec. 1350: 37 [T]he prohibition against official torture carries with it the force of a jus cogens norm,
which enjoys the highest status within international law.... The SC therefore conclude that the district court did not err
in founding jurisdiction on a violation of the jus cogens norm prohibiting official torture.
 The Court held that there is "ample indication" that the "Arising Under" Clause was meant to apply to "all
cases involving foreigners." The Estate nonetheless argues that early decisions regarding the interpretation of
section 11 of the First Judiciary Act (the Diversity Clause), should control the interpretation of section 9 of the
Act (the "Arising Under" Clause).
 The Estate's argument that section 9 requires one of the parties to be a citizen was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in
Verlinden.The Supreme Court held that "the 'Arising Under' Clause of Art. III provides an appropriate basis for the statutory
grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to actions by foreign plaintiffs under the Act." In conclusion, this action brought for
torts "committed by military intelligence officials through torture prohibited by the law of nations, is within the
jurisdictional grant of Sec. 1350." Estate I, 978 F.2d at 499.This exercise of jurisdiction does not violate Article III.

RULING OF THE COURT ISSUE: Is the Estate of Marcos liable for the tortured victims?
 The court further found that plaintiffs would be irreparably injured and that the remedies at law were not
adequate if the injunction were denied, concluding that there was substantial danger that the defendants
would transfer or conceal its funds, resulting in denying recovery to the plaintiffs. The court further found
that the Estate would not be harmed by the injunction because the Estate cannot distribute its assets until
claims against it are resolved, the assets of the Estate may continue to be invested, and that the balance of
hardships tips sharply in favor of issuance of the injunction. The Estate does not challenge these findings.
 Because plaintiffs in this action are citizens of the Philippines who are complaining of human rights abuses which occurred
in that country, this case arises under two statutes the Alien Tort Statute, and the newly enacted Tort Victim Protection Act
("TVPA") of 1991. The Alien Tort Statute does not address damages; the TVPA only provides that an
individual who abuses others under color of law of a foreign country is subject to liability for damages.
Virtually all of the nations of the world, including the United States and the Philippines, are in agreement
that human rights victims should have enforceable rights to fair and adequate compensation.Therefore,
the issue of damages is one of federal law.

RULING OF THE COURT ISSUE: Is the Estate of Marcos liable for the tortured victims?
 TORT LIABILITY ARISING FROM ACTS OF OFFICIAL TORTURE :
JURISPRUDENCE

IN RE ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS HUMAN RIGHTS LITIGATION: AGAPITA TRAJANO;

ARCHIMEDES TRAJANO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,V. FERDINAND E. MARCOS, DEFENDANT, AND
IMEE MARCOS-MANOTOC, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, 978 F.2D 493 (9TH CIR. 1992)
 We start with the face of the statute. It requires a claim by an alien, a tort, and a violation of international law.
Trajano's complaint alleges that she and her son were citizens of the Philippines, and that her claims for relief
arise under wrongful death statutes and various international declarations. There is no doubt, as the district court
found, that causing Trajano's death was wrongful, and is a tort. Nor, in view of Marcos-Manotoc's default, is there any
dispute that Trajano's death was caused by torture. And, as we have recently held, "it would be unthinkable to conclude
other than that acts of official torture violate customary international law."
 Regardless of the extent to which other principles may appropriately be relied upon, the prohibition against
official torture "carries with it the force of a jus cogens norm," which " 'enjoys the highest status within
international law.' As our survey of the scholarly and judicial opinion in Siderman reflects, there is widespread
agreement on this; "all states believe [torture] is wrong, all that engage in torture deny it, and no state claims a
sovereign right to torture its own citizens. Under international law, any state that engages in official torture
violates jus cogens." We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in founding jurisdiction on a
violation of the jus cogens norm prohibiting official torture.

RULING OF THE COURT ISSUE: Whether or not the US Court have jurisdiction over
the case filed by Agapita Trajano.
 The district court in fact agreed with Marcos-Manotoc that 1350 is simply a jurisdictional statute and creates no
cause of action itself. It proceeded to determine damages on default under Philippine law. From this we assume that
the court did not rely on treaties or international law to provide the cause of action, only to establish federal
jurisdiction. Indeed, the complaint alleges that Trajano's claims arise under wrongful death statutes, as well as
international law. Since Marcos-Manotoc's appeal is only to the extent the district court founded Trajano's right to
sue on treaties or the law of nations, it lacks merit because the tort is admitted. That it was committed in violation of
international law supplies the jurisdictional key to federal court under § 1350.We cannot say the district court erred.
 The district court's approach also allows the "law of nations" and "treaty" prongs of § 1350 to be treated
consistently, in that the cause of action comes from municipal tort law and not from the law of nations or treaties of
the United States.This avoids the anomalous result which troubled Judge Bork in Tel-Oren, that whereas Filartiga
found a private right of action by implying it from principles of international law, no private cause of action can ever
be implied from a non-self-executing treaty.
 For these reasons we affirm the judgment in Trajano's favor. Her suit as an alien against Marcos-Manotoc for having
caused the wrongful death of her son, by official torture in violation of a jus cogens norm of international law,
properly invokes the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts under § 1350.

RULING OF THE COURT ISSUE: Whether or not the US Court have jurisdiction over
the case filed by Agapita Trajano.
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

 The principle generally allowed is that crimes are punishable by the State
in whose territory they are committed.
 It is presumed that aliens, by entering the territory of a state, voluntarily
submit themselves to those laws, and the plea of ignorance as to their
requirements will not shield them from the consequence of disobedience.
 It is based principally on the common law principle that crimes are strictly
local in character and are to be punished by the State where they are
committed and in accordance with its laws.
 In case of torts, the proper law under this theory is the lex loci delicti.
States who legal system is based on the common law, like England and
the United States, follow this principle. In these States, the criminal law is
presumed to follow a citizen or a subject wherever he may go and, upon
his return, he may be punished for a crime committed abroad. This theory
is known as a nationality theory, since situs or jurisdiction is determined
by reference to the nationality or national character of the person
committing the crime.
NATIONALITY THEORY

 Situs or jurisdiction is determined by reference to the nationality or

national character of the person committing the crime.
 With particular reference to the Philippines, it may be pointed out that
the prevailing principle is the territorial principle, with a mixture of the
prospective principle. This can be gathered from Article 2 of the Revised
Penal Code of the Philippines which provides
 “Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside
its jurisdiction, against those who:
 Should commit an offense while on a Philippine Ship or airship;
 Should forego or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands
or obligation and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
 Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of
the obligation mentioned in the preceding number;
 While being officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their official functions, or
 Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations.
 Article 14 of the Civil Code likewise declares that “Penal laws and those of
public security shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory subject to the principles of Public International Law
and to treaty stipulations.
 It should be observed that in actual practice, the application of the
criminal laws of a State to a person residing within the territory of
another may foment serious international repercussion, especially when
the State is seeking the enforcement of its criminal law within the
territory of another is comparatively weaker or smaller than the latter.
 Aside from this shade of the protective principle, however, Philippine
penal laws apply only to crimes committed within Philippine territory.The
actual determination of whether a crime was committed within the
Philippines territory or not is not a simple as it may seem.
 Ordinarily, however, no hardship is encountered in pinpointing the situs of
a crime, especially where the particular crime consist of but a single act.
The lex loci delicti is easily the place where the single criminal act is
committed.