CRIMINAL LAW

B. CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
A. Nature and Definition GENERAL

1. CANCERAN V. PEOPLE 2. BAYAN V. ZAMORA

FACTS: FACTS:

Caneeran conspiring merchandisers steal 14 cartons of Beauty
Cream belonging to Ororama Mega Center. The employees of Ororama
prevented them from further carrying away said 14 cartons White
Beauty Cream. Although the evidence presented during the trial prove
the crime of consummated theft, the court cannot do so as the same
would violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
allegations against him.
In view of the possible extension of the military bases
agreement, the Philippine Senate rejected the proposed RP-US treaty of
Friendship, Cooperation and Security which would have extended the
presence of the US military bases in the Philippines. In 1997,
negotiations commenced and thereafter, Pres. Ramos approved the
VFA, which was respectively signed by Secretary Siazon and United
States Ambassador Thomas Hubbard.

ISSUE: ISSUE:
WON Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of theft as it
Whether VFA is a treaty or international agreement and was
was not charged in the information.
validly accepted by US
DECISION:
DECISION:
An accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven,
unless it is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed Treaty. For as long as USA accepts or acknowledges the VFA as
against him. The Court is not unmindful of the rule that "the real nature a treaty and binds itself further to comply with its obligations under the
of the criminal charge is determined, not from the caption or preamble treaty, there is indeed marked compliance with the mandate of the
of the information nor from the specification of the law alleged to have Constitution.
been violated - these being conclusions of law - but by the actual recital
of facts in the complaint or information.” LAW OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION

a. Immunity of President
Distinction
3. SOLIVEN V. MAKASIAR (1988)
i. Felonies
FACTS:
ii. Offenses The President charged Beltran with libel for writing in a national
newspaper that the President hid under her bed at the height of coup
iii. Misdemeanor attempt. Beltran urged that because the president is immune from suit,
she has a correlative disability to file suit.

1
ISSUE:
WON the president may initiate criminal proceedings.
DECISION:
Thus, an accused in a criminal case in which the president is a
complainant cannot raise the presidential privilege against such
accused.
4. RUBRICO VS. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (2010)
FACTS:
Rubrico’s said that she was abducted by armed men from the
301st Air Intelligence and Security Squadron. During her detention, her
daughters were allegedly harassed by Senior Inspector Arsenio Gomez
and was being followed by some armed men. Rubrico prayed that a
writ of Amparo be issued, to prevent the individual respondents from
performing any threatening acts against the security of her family and
for the Office of the Ombudsman to immediately file an information for
kidnapping.
The respondents then filed a joint return on the writ
specifically denying the allegations against them. They also gave the
defense that the President may not be sued during her term.
ISSUE:
Whether or not it is an error to dismiss the petition and
dropping President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as one of the respondents
of the case.
DECISION:
No, the CA didn’t commit and error. It was already understood in
jurisprudence that the President may not be sued during his or her
tenure that it will degrade the dignity of his or her high office.
5. DAVID VS. MACAPAGAL-ARROYO (2006)
FACTS:
During the 20th Anniversary of the EDSA People Power I,
President Arroyo declared a state of national emergency and call upon
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National
Police (PNP), to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism and lawless
violence in the country. The police arrested (without warrant)
petitioner Randolf S. David. President Arroyo declared that the state of
national emergency has ceased to exist. Petitioners
impleaded President Arroyo as respondent questioning the legality of
the proclamation, alleging that it encroaches the emergency powers of
Congress and it violates the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the
press, of speech and assembly.
ISSUE:
Whether or not proper to implead President Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo as respondent in the petitions.
DECISION:
It is not proper to implead President Arroyo as respondent. Settled
is the doctrine that the President, during his tenure of office or actual
incumbency, may not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is
no need to provide for it in the Constitution or law.
b. Diplomatic Immunity
6. MINUCHER V. SCALZO (2003)
FACTS:
In a buy-bust operation, a quantity of heroin was seized from
Minucher, an Iranian national, with Scalzo becoming one of the
principal witnesses for the prosecution as a USDEA agent. Minucher
then filed a civil case against Scalzo on the alleged trumped up charges
of drug trafficking made by Scalzo.
ISSUE:
Whether Scalzo is entitled to diplomatic immunity
2
DECISION:
Yes. Whether a person is a diplomat entitled to immunity is the
determination of whether or not he performs his duties of diplomatic
nature. Scalzo’s functions as an agent of USDEA as conducting
surveillance operations on suspected drug dealers, hence resolved
under the related doctrine State Immunity from Suit.
7. LIANG V. PEOPLE
FACTS:
Liang is an economist working with ADB and was charged with
two counts of grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory words
against fellow ADB worker. DFA sent an office protocol stating that
Liang is covered by immunity from legal processes under Sec 45 of
agreement between ADB and Philippine Government regarding the HQ
of ADB in the country.
ISSUE:
Whether Liang is entitled to immunity from criminal suit
DECISION:
No. The immunity is not absolute but subject to the exception
that the act was done in “official capacity”.
A public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in
bad faith beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction.
8. WHO v. Aquino
FACTS:
An original action for certiorari is filed for seizure of the
personal effects of petitioner official of the WHO notwithstanding his
being entitled to diplomatic immunity as duly recognized by the
executive branch of the Philippine Government as they allegedly
contain large quantities of highly dutiable goods beyond the official
needs of the petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to diplomatic immunity
pursuant to the Host Agreement between Philippine Government and
WHO
DECISION:
Yes. The diplomatic immunity carries with it diplomatic privileges
and immunities, personal inviolability, inviolability of the official’s
properties, exemption from local jurisdiction and exemption from
taxation and custom duties.
c. Members of Congress
9. People v. Jalosjos (2000)
FACTS:
Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is
now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for rape
and acts of lasciviousness is on pending appeal. He filed this motion
asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a
Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and
committee meetings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Jalosjos, Motion to be allowed to discharge
mandate as Member of House of Representatives.
DECISION:
No. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime
punishable by imprisonment of more than six months is not merely
authorized by law, it has constitutional foundations.”
10. Trillanes v. Hon. Pimentel (2008)
FACTS:
Heavily armed soldiers led by the AFP stormed into the
Oakwood Premier Apartments and publicly demanded the resignation
of the President and key national officials.
3
Arroyo declared a state of rebellion and calling out the Armed Forces to
suppress the rebellion.
Petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged, along with his
comrades, with coup d’etat. 4 years later, petitioner, who has remained
in detention, threw his hat in the political arena and won a seat in the
Senate with a 6-year term.
Petitioner filed with the RTC, an "Omnibus Motion for Leave of Court to
be Allowed to Attend Senate Sessions and Related Requests".
The trial court denied all the requests in the Omnibus Motion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not membership in Congress exempt an accused from
statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in
general.
DECISION:
No. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case
against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail
or on recognizance.
Allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and
committee meetings for 5 days or more in a week will virtually make
him a free man with all the privileges appurtenant to his position. This
would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system.
11. Pobre v. Sen. Santiago
FACTS:
Defensor-Santiagos delivered her speech on the Senate floor, “I
am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be
surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not
in the Supreme Court of idiots” The petitioner claims that the words of
the Senator were disrespectful/
Respondent explained that her statements were covered by the
constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a
speech she delivered in discharge of her duty as member of Congress or
its committee.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Senator Meriam Defensor Santiago can be
charged for her comments made on the Judiciary.
DECISION:
No. Her immunity being a member of the legislative body is rooted
primarily on the provision of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution,
which provides: A Senator or Member of the House of Representative
shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in
session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other
place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee
thereof.
12. Jimenez v. Cabangbang
FACTS:
Cabangbang was a member of the House of Representatives at
the time of publication an allegedly libelous letter, an open letter to the
President of the Philippines, when Congress presumably was not in
session, and defendant caused said letter to be published in several
newspapers of general circulation about the “three operational plans”
of by AFP officers with the aid of some civilian political strategists.
ISSUE:
Whether the publication falls within the purview of “speech or
debate therein” in Article VI, Section 15 of the Constitution.
DECISION:
The publication does not belong to the purview of “speech or
debate therein”. He was not performing his official duty upon the
publication, either as a member of Congress or as officer or any
Committee thereof and not absolutely privileged.
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
13. Bayan v. Zamora supra