Article 2 - Application of the Provisions of RPC

• Jurisdiction of Crimes 

People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733

FACTS: Appellee is accused of having illegally smoked opium, aboard the merchant
vessel Changsa of English nationality while said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay two
and a half miles from the shores of the city. The demurrer filed by said appellee alleged
lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court, which so held and dismissed the case.

ISSUE: Whether the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime, like the one
herein involved, committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction
waters.

HELD: 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 vessels 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 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 authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the United States (we were still
a US territory when this was decided in 1922). 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 being 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.

US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614

Facts: In August 12, 1901, the defendants were accused of the theft of 16 champagne
bottles worth 20 dollars while on board the vessel, “Lawton”. The counsel for defendants
alleged to the Court of First Instance of Manila that they were without jurisdiction over
the crime charged. Since it happened in the high seas and not in the city of Manila or in
the territory in which the jurisdiction of the court extends, they asked that the case be
dismissed.
 
Issue: Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the
criminal case theft committed on board while navigating on high seas on a vessel not
registered in the Philippines.
 
Held: No. The Philippine court has jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on high
seas on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines. The English Rule
states that such crimes are triable in our country when crimes are committed on board a
foreign vessel sailing from a foreign port and which enters the Philippine waters. In the
case at bar, the vessel Lawton was navigating the high seas at the commission of the
crime. Given the location of the vessel at the time, such act is not triable within our
jurisdiction.

U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7

Facts: The information alleged the following: That on and for many months to
December 2, 1908, H. N. Bull was the master of a steam sailing known as the
steamship Standard, the said vessel is engaged in carrying and transporting cattle,
carabaos, and other animals from a foreign port and city of Manila, Philippines. That the
accused Bull while being the master of the said vessel on or about the 2nd day of
December 1908, willfully, and wrongfully carry, transport and bring into the port and city
of Manila 677 head of cattle and carabaos from the port of Ampieng, Formosa, without
providing suitable means for securing said animals while in transit, so as to avoid cruelty
and unnecessary suffering to the said animals. In this, to wit, the accused as the master
of the vessel, did then and there fail to provide stalls for said animals so in transit and
suitable means for trying and securing said animals in a proper manner, and did then
and there cause some of said animals to be tied by means of rings passed through their
noses, and allow and permit others to be transported loose in the hold and on the deck
of said vessel without being tied or secured in stalls, and all without bedding; that by
reason of the aforesaid neglect and failure of the accused to provide suitable means for
securing said animals while so in transit, the noses of some of said animals were cruelly
torn, and many of said animals were tossed about upon the decks and hold of said
vessel, and cruelly wounded, bruised, and killed. All contrary to the provisions of Acts
No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine Commission

Issue: That under the evidence the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear and
determine the case.

Held: Yes. But a continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel
sailing from Formosa to the Philippines, by failing to provide stalls for animals in transit
in violation of Act No. 55, is triable in the Philippines. The offense of failing to provide
suitable means for securing animals while transporting them on a (foreign) ship from a
foreign port to a port of the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the
Philippines when the forbidden conditions existed during the time the ship was within
territorial waters, regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship
sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas. Since the Philippine
territory extends to three miles from the headlands, when a foreign merchant vessel
enters this three-mile limit, the ship's officers and crew become subject to the
jurisdiction of our courts. The space within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlands
which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay is within territorial waters.

French Rule. — Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless their commission
affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered
English Rule. — Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within
the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.

 • Jurisdiction of Military Court

Navales vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 162318-162341, October 25, 2004

FACTS: Petitioners consisting of more than three hundred junior officers and enlisted
men, mostly from the elite units of the AFP who all took part in a failed coup attempt in
Oakwood Suites, Makati, filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Supreme Court
questioning the jurisdiction of the Judge Advocate General in filing charges against
them for violations of the Articles of War Sections 67, 96, and 97. The Regional Trial
Court acquitted 290 of the original 331 soldiers who participated in the mutiny.
Petitioners contend that the Judge Advocate General due to the fact that their
participation in the mutiny was not service connected. The present petitions for
prohibition and for habeas corpus were then filed with the Supreme Court. Acting on the
prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order in the petition for prohibition, the
Supreme Court directed the parties to observe the status quo prevailing before the filing
of the petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Regional Trial Court can divest the military courts of
jurisdiction.

HELD: No. RA 7055 provides that "Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and other persons subject to military law, including members of the Citizens Armed
Forces Geographical Units, who commit crimes or offenses penalized under the
Revised Penal Code, other special penal laws, or local government ordinances,
regardless of whether or not civilians are co-accused, victims, or offended parties which
may be natural or juridical persons, shall be tried by the proper civil court, except when
the offense, as determined before arraignment by the civil court, is service-connected,
in which case the offense shall be tried by court-martial: Provided, That the President of
the Philippines may, in the interest of justice, order or direct at any time before
arraignment that any such crimes or offenses be tried by. Rep. Act No. 7055 did not
divest the military courts of jurisdiction to try cases involving violations of Articles 54 to
70, Articles 72 to 92 and Articles 95 to 97 of the Articles of War as these are considered
"service-connected crimes or offenses." In fact, it mandates that these shall be tried by
the court-martial. In view of the clear mandate of Rep. Act No. 7055, the Regional Trial
Court cannot divest the General Court-Martial of its jurisdiction over those charged with
violations of Articles 63 (Disrespect Toward the President etc.), 64 (Disrespect Toward
Superior Officer), 67 (Mutiny or Sedition), 96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a
Gentleman) and 97 (General Article) of the Articles of War, as these are specifically
included as "service-connected offenses or crimes" under Section 1 thereof. Pursuant
to the same provision of law, the military courts have jurisdiction over these crimes or
offenses.

• Exception: Treaty Stipulation

Bayan vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570, October 10, 2000

Fact: In view of the impending expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in
1991, the Philippines and the United States negotiated for a possible extension of the
military bases agreement. On September 16, 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the
proposed RP-US Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security which, in effect, would
have extended the presence of US military bases in the Philippines. On July 18, 1997,
the United States panel met with the Philippine panel to exchange notes on the
complementing strategic interests of the United States and the Philippines in the Asia-
Pacific region.” Both sides discussed, among other things, the possible elements of the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA for brevity). On October 5, 1998, President Joseph E.
Estrada, through respondent Secretary of Foreign Affairs, ratified the VFA. Petitioners
went to the Supreme Court to question the validity of the VFA as it alleges the following:

Issue: Whether the VFA constitute an abdication of Philippine sovereignty and deprived
Philippine courts of their jurisdiction to hear and try offenses committed by US military
personnel?

Held: No, the VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops
and personnel visiting the Philippines. It provides for the guidelines to govern such visits
of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States and the
Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of vessel and
aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and supplies. Philippine
authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to offenses
committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.
• Jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the AFP in
violation of military law and public law

People vs. Livara, 94 Phil. 771

Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil. 356

o Gonzales vs. Abaya, 498 SCRA 445