CRIMINAL 1 JERAMIE CORPIN

PROSECUTOR NOJARA LLB-WSP

CASE DIGEST IN PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS

Shauf v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 90314, November 27, 1990

RULING:

The Court held the private respondents jointly and severally liable for moral damages.
The Court ruled that it is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his
capacity as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of the plaintiff, and that the
doctrine of immunity from suit cannot apply in this case as the respondents’ acts were done with
malice and in bad faith. Article XIII, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State
shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote
full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all and under the Constitution of
the United States, the assurance of equality in employment and work opportunities regardless of
sex, race, or creed is also given by the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights.

There is no doubt that private respondents violated the basic constitutional right of
the petitioner.

Arigo, et al. v. Swift, et al.

G.R. No. 206510, September 16, 2014 (En Banc)

RULING:

Although the petitioners have legal standing to file the present petition, it is not
appropriate for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction over the US respondents in their official
capacity. Petition was denied.

The inhibition to implead a foreign state in a local jurisdiction is expressed in the maxim
par in parem, non habet imperium. That is, all states are sovereign equals and cannot assert
jurisdiction over one another. This is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the
state for acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that if the
judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy
the same, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the damages awarded against
them, the suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it has not been formally
impleaded. The alleged act or omission resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS
Guardian on the TRNP was committed while the US respondents were performing official
military duties and working as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control and
supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The suit is deemed to be one against the US
itself as the satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and
appropriation of funds by the US government. Therefore, the principle of State immunity bars
the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and
Robling.

Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem

G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014

RULING:

Yes. The court has jurisdiction over the offense under the Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act of 2004 because the foreigner is living here in the Philippines and
committed the offense here.

While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree
with the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he
is obliged to give support to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so. This
does not, however, mean that Ernst is not obliged to support Norma’s son altogether. In
international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the
burden of proving the foreign law. In the present case, Ernst hastily concludes that being a
national of the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and
capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing his position
that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same. It is incumbent upon Ernst to
plead and prove that the national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the
obligation to support their child. Foreign laws do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and
our courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be
alleged and proved. Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would
work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the most
important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates
the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of the
Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize the non-
compliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it
would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled
thereto.
U.S. v. Bull
G.R. No. L-5270, January 15, 1910

RULING:

No court of the Philippines has jurisdiction over any crimes committed in a foreign ship
on the high seas, but the moment it entered into territorial waters, it automatically would be
subject to the jurisdiction of the country. Every state has complete control and jurisdiction over
its territorial waters. The Supreme Court of the United States has recently said that merchant
vessels of one country visiting the ports of another for trade would subject themselves to the laws
which govern the ports they visit, so long as they remain.

U.S. v. Wong Cheng

G.R. No. L-18924, October 19, 1922

RULING:

Yes, the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction.

There are two fundamental rules on this particular matter in connection with International
Law; to wit, the French rule, according to which crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant
vessel should not be prosecuted in the courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction
they were committed, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the territory; and
the English rule, based on the territorial principle and followed in the United States, according to
which, crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are in general triable in the courts of the
country within the territory, they were committed. Of these two rules, it is the last one that
obtains in this jurisdiction, because at present the theories and jurisprudence prevailing in the
United States on this matter are an authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the
United States.

We have seen that the mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was
held by this court not triable by or courts, because it being the primary object of our Opium Law
to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed by the use of
this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not bring
about in the said territory those effects that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence such a mere
possession is not considered a disturbance of the public order.

But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant
ship, is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it causes such drug to
produce its pernicious effects within our territory. It seriously contravenes the purpose that our
Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute.

Remanded to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with law.

U.S. v. Look Chow

G.R. No. L-5887, December 16, 1910

RULING:

Yes. The Philippine court has the jurisdiction over the trial.

The mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel
in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts
of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its nationality.
However, the same rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the
Philippines, in the present case, a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon the Philippine
soil, thus committing an open violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission
of the crime. Only the court established in the said place itself has competent jurisdiction, in the
absence of an agreement under an international treaty.

Calme v. Court of Appeals, et al.,

G.R. No. 116688, August 30, 1996

RULING:

Yes. The present rule provides that jurisdiction is vested "in the proper court of the first
port of entry or of any municipality or territory through which the vessel passed during such
voyage The exact location where the alleged offense was committed was not duly established.
The Marine protest simply adverted that the vessel was within the waters of Siquijor Island when
the captain was informed of the incident, which does not necessarily prove that the alleged
murder took place in the same area. In any case, where the crime was committed is immaterial
since it is undisputed that it occurred while the vessel was in transit. In transit simply means on
the way or passage; while passing from one person or place to another, in the course of
transportation. The applicable provision is par. (c) of Sec. 15 (now Section 14), Rule 110 which
provides that where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the
criminal action may be instituted and tried in the proper court of the first port of entry or of any
municipality or territory through which the vessel passed during such voyage subject to the
generally accepted principles of international law.

AAA v. BBB
G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018

RULING:

Yes. All told, the Court finds no merit in BBB’s petition, but there exists a necessity to
remand the case for the RTC to resolve matters relative to who shall be granted custody over the
three children, how the spouses shall exercise visitation rights and the amount and manner of
providing financial support. The RTC and the CA found substantial evidence and did not commit
reversible errors when they Issued the PPO against BBB. Events, which took place after the
issuance of the PPO, do not erase the fact that psychological, emotional and economic abuses
were committed by BBB against AAA. Hence, BBB’s claim that he now has actual sole care of
DDD and EEE does not necessarily call for this Court’s revocation of the PPO and the award to
him of custody over the children.

This Court, thus, affirms the CA’s order to remand the case for the RTC to resolve the
question of custody. Since the children are now all older than seven years of age, they can
choose for themselves whom they want to stay with. If all the three children would manifest to
the RTC their choice to stay with AAA, then the PPO Issued by RTC shall continue to be
executed in its entirety. However, if any of the three children would choose to be under BBB’s
care, necessarily, the PPO Issued against BBB relative to them is to be modified. The PPO, in its
entirety, would remain effective only as to AAA and any of the children who opt to stay with
her. Consequently, the RTC may accordingly alter the manner and amount of financial support
BBB should give depending on who shall finally be awarded custody over the children.

Pursuant to Articles 201 and 202 of the Family Code, BBB’s resources and means and
the necessities of AAA and the children are the essential factors in determining the amount of
support, and the same can be reduced or increased proportionately. The RTC is reminded to be
circumspect in resolving the matter of support, which is a mutual responsibility of the spouses.
The parties do not dispute that AAA is now employed as well, thus, the RTC should consider the
same with the end in mind of promoting the best interests of the children
Sr. Insp. Valeroso v. People
G.R. No. 164815, February 22, 2008

RULING:

It was held that in illegal possession of firearm and ammunition, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the two elements: first, the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition,
and second the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it.

The existence of the subject firearm and its ammunition was established through the
testimony of SPO2 Disuanco. Defense witness Yuson also identified the firearm. Its existence
was likewise admitted by the petitioner himself. The Court on several occasions ruled that either
the testimony of a representative of or a certification from, the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would
suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession of illegal firearms.
The prosecution more than complied when it presented both.

Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison v. Sec De Lima, et. al

G.R. No. 212719, June 25, 2019

RULING:

Yes. Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR violates the provision of the constitution particularly
the rights of citizens to due process and Art. 22 of the RPC on the following grounds:

a. Petitioners are directly affected by Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR because they are
prisoners currently serving their respective sentences at the NBP. They have a personal
stake in the outcome of this case as their stay in prison will potentially be shortened.

b. Petitioners Edago et al. are correct in asserting that R.A. No. 10592 and its IRR affect the
entire correctional system of the Philippines. The nationwide implications of the
petitions, the extensive scope of the subject matter, the upholding of public policy, and
the repercussions on the society are factors warranting direct recourse to the Court. There
is an urgent necessity to dispense substantive justice on the numerous affected inmates. It
is a must to treat this consolidated case with a circumspect leniency, granting petitioners
the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case rather than lose their liberty on
the basis of technicalities. Substantive due process guarantees a right to liberty that
cannot be taken away or unduly constricted.
 c. While R.A. No. 10592 does provide/prescribe/establish a penalty component of our
correctional system, not define a crime/offense or provide/prescribe/establish a penalty as
it addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its provisions have
the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached to the crime. The further
reduction on the length of the penalty of imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis,
beneficial to the detention and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls for the application
of Article 22 of the RPC. The prospective application precludes the decrease in the
penalty attached to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison.

Hernan v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017

RULING:

No. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions
to reopen the case.

As one of the requisites in reopening of the case, it must be before the finality of
judgment. In this case, it took three years after the entry of the judgment before a motion to
reopen the case was filed. The judgment has long become final and executory.

But when exceptional circumstances exist, such as the passage of an amendatory law
imposing penalties more lenient and favorable to the accused, the Court can direct reopening of a
final and immutable judgment, the objective of which is to correct not so much the findings of
guilt but the applicable penalties to be imposed.

People v. Simon
G.R. No. 93028, July 29, 1994

RULING:

The Court held that the 2 tea bags of marijuana was sold and there were 2 other teabags
of marijuana confiscated. Thus, Simon should be charged with selling the 2 tea bags of
marijuana only.

To sustain a conviction for selling prohibited drugs, the sale must be clearly and
unmistakably established. To sell means to give, whether for money or any other material
consideration. It must, therefore, be established beyond doubt that the appellant sold and
delivered two tea bags of marijuana dried leaves to Sgt. Lopez, who acted as the poseur-buyer, in
exchange for two twenty-peso bills.

Thus, in the case, the appellant should be begrudged the benefit of a minimum sentence
within the range of arresto mayor, the penalty next lower to prision correccional which is the
maximum range have fixed through the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal
Code. For, with fealty to the law, the court may set the minimum sentence at 6 months of arresto
mayor, instead of 6 months and 1 day of prision correccional.