Characteristics of

criminal law
 Characteristics of criminal law

1. Generality

2. Territoriality

3. Prospectivity
 Generality

 Criminal law is general as it is binding on all

persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory. [Civil Code, art. 14]

 Penal laws and those of public security and

safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations. [Civil Code, art. 14]
 Exceptions to the general
application of criminal law

1. Treaties or treaty stipulations [Civil Code, art.

14, and Rev. Pen. Code, art. 2]
 
2. Laws of preferential application [Rev. Pen.
Code, art. 2]

3. Principles of public international law [Civil

Code, art. 14]
 Treaty

A treaty may be defined as a compact made between two or

more independent nations with a view to the public welfare.
[Adolfo v. Court of First Instance of Zambales, 34 SCRA 166, 169
(1970)]
 
International agreements involving political issues or changes
of national policy and those involving international arrangements
of a permanent character usually take the form of treaties. But
international agreements embodying adjustments of detail carrying
out well-established national policies and traditions and those
involving arrangements of a more or less temporary nature usually
take the form of executive agreements. [Adolfo v. Court of First
Instance of Zambales, 34 SCRA 166, 169 (1970), citing
Commissioner of Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351,
355-356 (1961)]
 Validity of a treaty

No treaty or international
agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-
thirds of all the Members of the
Senate. [Section 21, Article VII, 1987
Constitution]
 Examples of treaties

1. Formerly the Military Bases Agreement

entered into by and between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America on
14 March 1947 (which expired on 16
September 1991)
 
2. Agreement Between the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines and the Government
of the United States of America Regarding the
Treatment of United States Armed Forces
Visiting the Philippines dated 10 February 1998
(Visiting Forces Agreement)
 US personnel in the VFA
United States personnel means United States military
and civilian personnel temporarily in the Philippines in
connection with activities approved by the Philippine
Government. [Article I, VFA]
 
Military personnel refers to military members of the
United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and
Coast Guard. Civilian personnel refers to individuals who
are neither nationals of nor ordinarily resident in the
Philippines and who are employed by the United States
armed forces or who are accompanying the United States
armed forces, such as employees of the American Red Cross
and the United Services Organization. [Article I(1) and (2),
VFA]
 Criminal jurisdiction granted to
the US under the VFA
1. United States military authorities shall have the right to
exercise within the Philippines all criminal and disciplinary
jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United
States over United States personnel in the Philippines [Article
V(1)(b), VFA]
 
2. United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over
the United States personnel with respect to offenses, including
offenses relating to the security of the United States,
punishable under the laws of the United States, but not under the
laws of the Philippines; [Article V(2)(b), VFA]
 
3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is
concurrent, the following rules shall apply:
 
(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right
to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses committed by United
States personnel, except in cases provided for in
paragraphs 1(b), 2 (b) and 3 (b) of Article V on Criminal
Jurisdiction.
 
(b) United States military authorities shall have the
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over United States
personnel subject to the military law of the United States in
relation to:
 (i) offenses solely against the property or security of
the United States or offenses solely against the property
or person of United States personnel; and
 
(ii) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in
performance of official duty. [Article V(3)(b), VFA]
 Laws of preferential application

Republic Act No. 75 or An Act to Penalize Acts

Which Would Impair The Proper Observance By
the Republic and Inhabitants of the Philippines of
the Immunities, Rights and Privileges of Duly
Accredited Foreign Diplomatic and Consular
Agents in the Philippines is considered as a law of
preferential application in favor of diplomatic
representatives and their domestic servants.
 
 Laws of preferential application

Rep. Act No. 75 declares as void any writ or

process sued out or prosecuted by any person in
any court of the Philippines, or by any judge or
justice, whereby the person of any ambassador or
public minister of any foreign State, authorized
and received as such by the President, or any
domestic or domestic servant or any such
ambassador or public minister is arrested or
imprisoned, or his goods or chattels are
distrained, seized or attached. [Section 4, Rep. Act
No. 75]
 Laws of preferential application

Rep. Act No. 75 also penalizes every person by

whom the above writ or process is obtained or
prosecuted, whether as party or as attorney, and
every officer concerned in executing it. [Section 4,
Rep. Act No. 75]
 Who are covered by RA 75?

1. Ambassador or public minister of any foreign

State [Section 4, Rep. Act No. 75]
 
2. Domestic or domestic servant of any such
ambassador or minister of a foreign State
[Section 4, Rep. Act No. 75]
 Requisites for application of
preferential treatment to ambassadors

1. It applies only to ambassadors and public ministers of

a foreign State
 
2. The ambassador or public minister has been
authorized and received as such by the Philippine
President
 
3. Such foreign State must provide similar protection
to duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives
of the Republic of the Philippines [Sections 4 and 7, Rep.
Act No. 75]
Requisites for preferential treatment to
domestic servants of ambassadors

1. Person involved is a domestic or domestic servant of

an ambassador or public minister of a foreign State
 
2. The name of the servant has been registered with the
Department of Foreign Affairs
 
3. The name of the servant has been transmitted by the
Department of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of
Manila
 
4. Chief of Police of Manila, upon receipt of transmittal,
posted the name in some public place in his office
[Sections 4 and 5, Rep. Act No. 75]
 When will Sec. 4 of RA 75 not apply?

The provisions of section four of Rep. Act No.

75 shall not apply to any case where the person
against whom the process is issued is a citizen or
inhabitant of the Republic of the Philippines, in
the service of an ambassador or a public minister,
and the process is founded upon a debt
contracted before he entered upon such service.
[Section 5, Rep. Act No. 75]
 Exemptions by virtue of the general
principles of public international law

1. Sovereigns and other chiefs of state

 
2. Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary,
ministers resident, and charges d’affaires
 
3. Foreign army permitted to march through a
friendly country or to be stationed in it, by
permission of its government or sovereign
[Raquiza v. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 (1945)]
 
 Philippines has adopted the general
principles of public international law

The Philippines renounces war as an

instrument of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation and amity with all nations. [Section
2, Article II, 1987 Constitution] 
 Sovereign

Sovereign is a title which can be applied to the

highest leader in various categories. The word is
borrowed from Old French soverain, which is
ultimately derived from the Latin word superānus,
meaning "above".
The roles of a sovereign vary from Monarch or
Head of state to head of municipal government or
head of a chivalric order. As a result, the word
sovereign has more recently also come to mean
independence or autonomy. [Wikipedia] 
 Head of state or chief of state

A head of state or chief of state is the public persona

who officially represents the national unity and legitimacy of
a sovereign state. Depending on the country's form of
government and separation of powers, the head of state may
be a ceremonial figurehead or concurrently the head of
government. In a parliamentary system, the head of state
usually has mostly ceremonial powers, with a separate head
of government. In presidential systems, the head of state is
also the head of government. [Wikipedia] 
 Ambassador

A public officer clothed with high

diplomatic powers, commissioned by a
government to transact the international
business of his government with a foreign
government. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition, 1990, p. 79]
 Public minister

A general term comprehending all the higher

classes of diplomatic representatives – as
ambassadors, envoys, residents, - but not
including the commercial representatives, such as
consuls. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition,
1990, p. 996] 
 Minister plenipotentiary

A principal diplomatic agent ranking below an

ambassador but possessing full power and
authority as the representative of his government
at a foreign court or seat of government [Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary, p. 1439]
 Plenipotentiary

One who has full power to do a thing; a person

fully commissioned to act for another. A term
applied in international law to ministers and
envoys of the second rank of public ministers.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, p.
1154]
 Minister resident

A diplomatic agent resident at a foreign court

or seat of government and ranking below a
minister plenipotentiary [Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary, p. 1439]
 Charges d’affaires

One charged with affairs. A lower ranking

member of the diplomatic corps who directs
diplomatic affairs during the absence of the
ambassador or minister [Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary, p. 377]
 Consuls

An officer of a commercial character, appointed by the

different nations to watch over the mercantile and tourist interests
of the appointing nation and of its subjects in foreign countries.
There are usually a number of consuls in every maritime country,
and they are usually subject to a chief consul, who is called a
“consul general.” A public official residing in a foreign country
responsible for developing and protecting the economic interests of
his government and looking after the welfare of his government’s
citizens who may be traveling or residing within his jurisdiction.
United States consuls form a part of the Foreign Service and are of
various grades; consul general, consul, vice consul, and consular
agent. [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990, p. 316]
 Consuls not exempt from
criminal prosecution

It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to

the privileges and immunities of an ambassador
or minister, but is subject to the laws and
regulations of the country to which he is
accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal
prosecution for violations of the laws of the
country where he resides. [Schneckenburger v.
Moran, 63 Phil. 249, 251 (1936)]
 Foreign army permitted to march

It is well settled that a foreign army, permitted

to march through a friendly country or to be
stationed in it, by permission of its government or
sovereign, is exempt from the civil and criminal
jurisdiction of the place. [Raquiza v. Bradford, 75
Phil. 50 (1945)]
Absolute v. Relative immunity
 Liang v. People
Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the
communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any
immunity. The DFA's determination that a certain person is
covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding
effect in courts.
The immunity granted under the Agreement between the ADB
and the Philippine Government to ADB employees is not absolute,
but subject to the exception that the acts was done in "official
capacity." It is therefore necessary to determine if petitioner's case
falls within the ambit of Section 45(a).
Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the
immunity agreement because our laws do not allow the
commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official
duty.
 Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations
The Convention lists the classes of heads of diplomatic
missions to include (a) ambassadors or nuncios accredited to the
heads of state, (b) envoys, ministers or internuncios accredited to
the heads of states; and (c) charges d' affairs accredited to the
ministers of foreign affairs. Comprising the "staff of the (diplomatic)
mission" are the diplomatic staff, the administrative staff and the
technical and service staff. Only the heads of missions, as well as
members of the diplomatic staff, excluding the members of the
administrative, technical and service staff of the mission, are
accorded diplomatic rank. [Khosrow v. Minucher, G.R. No.
142396, 11 February 2003]
 Vienna Convention
Even while the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
provides for immunity to the members of diplomatic missions, it
does so, nevertheless, with an understanding that the same be
restrictively applied. Only "diplomatic agents," under the terms of
the Convention, are vested with blanket diplomatic immunity from
civil and criminal suits.

The Convention defines "diplomatic agents" as the heads of

missions or members of the diplomatic staff, thus impliedly
withholding the same privileges from all others. [Khosrow v.
Minucher, G.R. No. 142396, 11 February 2003]
 Vienna Convention
It might bear stressing that even consuls, who represent their
respective states in concerns of commerce and navigation and
perform certain administrative and notarial duties, such as the
issuance of passports and visas, authentication of documents, and
administration of oaths, do not ordinarily enjoy the traditional
diplomatic immunities and privileges accorded diplomats, mainly
for the reason that they are not charged with the duty of
representing their states in political matters. Indeed, the main
yardstick in ascertaining whether a person is a diplomat entitled to
immunity is the determination of whether or not he performs
duties of diplomatic nature. [Khosrow v. Minucher, G.R. No.
142396, 11 February 2003]
 Minucher v.Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 142396, 11 February 2003
But while the diplomatic immunity of Scalzo might thus
remain contentious, it was sufficiently established that, indeed, he
worked for the United States Drug Enforcement Agency and was
tasked to conduct surveillance of suspected drug activities within
the country on the dates pertinent to this case. If it should be
ascertained that Arthur Scalzo was acting well within his assigned
functions when he committed the acts alleged in the complaint,
the present controversy could then be resolved under the related
doctrine of State Immunity from Suit.

The Supreme Courte eventually ruled that Arthur Scalzo is an

agent of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency allowed by
the Philippine government to conduct activities in the country to
help contain the problem on the drug traffic and that he is entitled
to the defense of state immunity from suit.
 Is the President not covered by
Philippine penal laws?

Yes, he is covered by Philippine penal

laws. He is just immune from suit from in
office.
 Presidential immunity from suit

Incumbent Presidents are immune from

suit or from being brought to court during
the period of their incumbency and tenure.
[In re Saturnino Bermudez, G.R. No.
76180, 24 October 1986]
 Presidential immunity from suit

The Court also stresses that rule that the

presidential immunity from suit exists only in
concurrence with the president’s incumbency. [In
the matter of the petition for the writ of amparo
and writ of habeas data in favor of Francis Saez
vs. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al., G.R. No.
183533, 25 September 2012]
 Presidential immunity from suit

In Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, 2 March

2001, we clarified the doctrine that a non-sitting President
does not enjoy immunity from suit, even for acts committed
during the latter’s tenure. We emphasize our ruling therein
that courts should look with disfavor upon the presidential
privilege of immunity, especially when it impedes the search
for truth or impairs the vindication of a right. [In the matter
of the Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas
Data in favor of Noriel Rodriguez vs. Gloria Macapagal
Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 191805 and 193160, 15 November
2012]
 Officials removable through
impeachment

The President, the Vice-President, the

Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of
the Constitutional Commissions, and the
Ombudsman may be removed from office on
impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or
betrayal of public trust. All other public officers
and employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.
[Const., art. XI, sec. 2]
 Parliamentary immunity

A Senator or Member of the House of

Representatives 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. [Const., art. VI, sec. 11]
 Jurisdiction of courts not affected by
military character of accused

The Supreme Court has held that the

jurisdiction of civil tribunals is unaffected by the
military or other special character of the person
brought before it for trial. [United States v. Sweet,
1 Phil. 18 (1901)]
 Rep. Act No. 7055 repealed PD 1850

Rep. Act No. 7055 repealed Presidential

Decree No. 1850 which earlier subjected members
of the Philippine National Police to the jurisdiction
of courts martial. This is in line with Section 6,
Article XVI (General Provisions) of the 1987
Constitution, which provides that the State shall
establish and maintain one police force, which
shall be national in scope and civilian in
character. Police personnel are thus under the
jurisdiction of civil courts.
 Service-connected offenses

Service-connected crimes or offenses are

limited to those defined in Articles 54 to 70,
Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to 97 of
Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended, or the
Articles of War. [Rep. Act No. 7055, sec. 1]
 
 Service-connected offenses
Service-connected crimes under the Articles of War include,
among others: Fraudulent and Unlawful Enlistment (Arts. 54 to
55), False Muster (Art. 56), False Returns (Art. 57), Desertion,
Aiding a Deserter, and Entertaining a Deserter (Arts. 58-61),
Absence Without Leave (Art. 62), Disrespect and Insubordination
(Arts. 63 to 66), Mutiny or Sedition and Failure to Suppress
Mutiny or Sedition (Arts. 67 to 68), Quarrels, Frays, Disorders (Art.
69), Offenses involving Prisoners (Arts. 72 to 75), War Offenses
(Arts. 76 to 83), Miscellaneous Crimes and Offenses, e.g. involving
Military Property, Drunkenness on Duty, Dueling (Arts. 84 to 95),
and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman (Art. 96).  
 Service-connected offenses
Articles 54 to 70:

Art. 54. Fraudulent Enlistment.

Art. 55. Officer Making Unlawful Enlistment.
Art. 56. False Muster.
Art. 57. False Returns.
Art. 58. Certain Acts to Constitute Desertion.
Art. 59. Desertion.
Art. 60. Advising or Aiding Another to Desert.
Art. 61. Entertaining a Deserter.
Art. 62. Absence Without Leave.
Art. 63. Disrespect Toward the President, Vice-President, Congress
of the Philippines, or Secretary of National Defense.
Art. 64. Disrespect Toward Superior Officer.
 Service-connected offenses
Art. 65. Assaulting or Willfully Disobeying Superior Officer.
Art. 66. Insubordinate Conduct Toward Non-Commissioned
Officer.
Art. 67. Mutiny or Sedition.
Art. 68. Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition.
Art. 69. Quarrels; Frays; Disorders.
Art. 70. Arrest or Confinement.

Articles 72 to 92

Art. 72. Refusal to Receive and Keep Prisoners.

Art. 73. Report of Prisoners Received.
Art. 74. Releasing Prisoner Without Authority.
Art. 75. Delivery of Offenders to Civil Authorities.
 Service-connected offenses
Art. 76. Misbehavior Before the Enemy.
Art. 77. Subordinates Compelling Commander to Surrender.
Art. 78. Improper Use of Countersign.
Art. 79. Forcing a Safeguard.
Art. 80. Captured Property to be Secured for Public Service.
Art. 81. Dealing in Captured or Abandoned Property.
Art. 82. Relieving, Corresponding With, or Aiding the Enemy.
Art. 83. Spies.
Art. 84. Military Property. – Willful or Negligent Loss, Damage or
Wrongful Disposition.
Art. 85. Waste or Unlawful Disposition of Military Property Issued
to Soldiers.
Art. 86. Drunk on Duty.
Art. 87. Misbehavior of Sentinel.
 Service-connected offenses
Art. 88. Personal Interest in Sale of Provisions.
Art. 88-A. Unlawfully Influencing Action of Court.
Art. 89. Intimidation of Persons Bringing Provisions.
Art. 90. Good Order to be Maintained and Wrongs Redressed.
Art. 91. Provoking Speeches or Gestures.
Art. 92. Dueling.

Articles 95 to 97:

Art. 95. Frauds Against the Government.

Art. 96. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman.
Art. 97 General Article.
 Prerogative of the President

In the same law, the President may, in the

interest of justice, order or direct at any time
before arraignment that any such crime or offense
be tried by the proper civil courts even though the
offense is service-connected. [Rep. Act No. 7055,
sec. 1]
 Rapsing v. Ables
G.R. No. 171855, 15 October 2012  

Petitioners are widows of the persons killed by

respondents, who are members of the Philippine
Army, allegedly in an encounter. Respondents
were charged with multiple murder as no
encountered allegedly occurred. Judge Advocate
General’s Office (JAGO) filed motion asking that
the cases be transferred to the military tribunal.
RTC initially denied but, on MR, granted the
motion.
 The Supreme Court granted the petition.

Murder is a crime punishable under Article 248 of

the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended, and is
within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

The crime committed is not service-connected

under Republic Act No. 7055. Service-connected
crimes or offenses shall be limited to those defined in
Articles 54 to 70, Articles 72 to 92, and Articles 95 to
97 of Commonwealth Act No. 408, as amended.
 Navales v. Abaya
G.R. Nos. 162318 and 162341, 25 October 2004  

These involved two petitions essentially assailing the

jurisdiction of the General Court-Martial to conduct the court-
martial proceedings involving several junior officers and
enlisted men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
charged with violations of the Articles of War (Commonwealth
Act No. 408, as amended) in connection with their participation
in the take-over of the Oakwood Premier Apartments in Ayala
Center, Makati City on July 27, 2003.

321 solders who participated in the Oakwood mutiny were

charged with coup d’etat in the RTC, but only 31 of them were
included in the Information for coup d’etat. The military wanted
to conduct court martial proceedings and RTC held that the
offenses were not service-connected and absorbed in coup
d’etat.
 Court martial still proceeded to schedule arraignment, thus,
these petitions.

The Supreme Court held that the sweeping declaration

made by the RTC (Branch 148) that all charges before the
court-martial against the accused were not service-connected,
but absorbed and in furtherance of the crime of coup d’etat,
cannot be given effect.

It is clear from the foregoing that 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 RTC
(Branch 148) 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.
 Gonzales v. Abaya
G.R. No. 164007,10 August 2006  

The Supreme Court held that the offense for violation of

Article 96 of the Articles of War is service-connected.

It is clear from the foregoing that 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.
 The trial court aggravated its error when it justified its
ruling by holding that the charge of Conduct Unbecoming an
Officer and a Gentleman is ‘absorbed and in furtherance to the
alleged crime of coup d’etat.’ Firstly, the doctrine of ‘absorption
of crimes’ is peculiar to criminal law and generally applies to
crimes punished by the same statute, unlike here where
different statutes are involved. Secondly, the doctrine applies
only if the trial court has jurisdiction over both offenses. Here,
Section 1 of R.A. 7055 deprives civil courts of jurisdiction over
service-connected offenses, including Article 96 of the Articles
of War. Thus, the doctrine of absorption of crimes is not
applicable to this case.
 Territoriality

Philippine criminal law is territorial in character because it

is obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory. [Civil Code, art. 14]
 
The principle of territoriality means that, as a rule, penal
laws of the Philippines are enforceable only with its territory.
[Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book I, Sixteenth
Edition, 2006, p. 12]
 
Philippine criminal law is enforceable within the Philippine
archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone. [Rev. Pen. Code, art. 2]
 Philippine territory

Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that it shall be

enforced within the Philippine Archipelago, its atmosphere, its
interior waters and maritime zone. The 1987 Constitution has
adopted a broader definition of Philippine national territory.
 
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other
territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form
part of the internal waters of the Philippines. [Const., art. I]
 Philippine territory
1. The Philippine archipelago

2. All other territories over which the

Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
 Archipelago
An archipelago is a group of islands, including
parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other
natural features which are so closely interrelated
that such islands, waters and other natural
features form an intrinsic geographical, economic
and political entity, or which historically have
been regarded as such. [UNCLOS, art. 46(b)]
Archipelagic doctrine re internal waters

The Philippines adopted the archipelagic doctrine in

defining its internal waters as incorporated in the second
sentence of Section 1, Article I of the 1987 Constitution
which provides that “[t]he waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines”.
 
This is a departure from accepted International Law
Rule which provides that, when a strait within a country
has a width of more than six (6) miles, the center lane in
excess of the three (3) miles on both sides is considered
international waters.
 Territorial sea

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the

Sea (UNCLOS), which took effect on 16 November
1994, mandated a uniform breadth of twelve
nautical miles from the low water mark of the
coasts for the territorial sea.
 Contiguous zone

Twenty four (24) nautical miles from the baselines

from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured. [UNCLOS, art. 33]
Rights within the contiguous zone
The State may exercise the control necessary to:

1. Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration

or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or
territorial sea

2. Punish infringement of the above laws and regulations

within its territory or territorial sea [UNCLOS, art. 33]
 Exclusive economic zone

The exclusive economic zone shall not extend

beyond two hundred (200) nautical miles from the
baselines from which the breadth of the territorial
sea is measured. [UNCLOS, art. 57]
 Rights, jurisdiction and duties within
the EEZ

1. Sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and

exploiting, conserving and managing the natural
resources and for economic exploitation and exploration

2. Jurisdiction with regard to: (a) the establishment and

use of artificial islands, installations and structures, (b)
marine scientific research, and (c) the protection and
preservation of the marine environment [UNCLOS, art.
56]
 High seas

All parts of the sea that are not included in the

exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or
internal waters of a State, or in the archipelagic
waters of a State [UNCLOS, art. 86]
 Exceptions to the territoriality
principle

1. Treaties or treaty stipulations [Civil Code, art.

14, and Rev. Pen. Code, art. 2]
 
2. Laws of preferential application [Rev. Pen.
Code, art. 2]

3. Principles of public international law [Civil

Code, art. 14]
Miquiabas v. Commanding General
80 Phil. 262 (1948)
 Extraterritorial application of
Philippine penal laws
The Revised Penal Code shall be enforced outside of the
Philippine jurisdiction against those who:
 
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship
or airship;
 
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note
of the Philippines or obligations and securities issued by
the Republic of the Philippines;
 
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the
introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number;
 
4. While being public officers or employees,
should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
 
5. Should commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations, defined
in Title One, Book II of the Revised Penal Code.
[Rev. Pen. Code, art. 2]
 
 Foreign warships

With regard to foreign warships, they have

been accorded the privilege of extraterritoriality
on the basis of comity and convenience. [United
States v. Bull, 15 Phil. 7 (1910)]
 Rules pertaining to merchant vessels

1. English rule

2. French rule
 Cases on the English and French rules

1. United States v. Bull

2. United States v. Look Chaw

3. People v. Wong Cheng

4. U.S. v. Ah Sing
 People v. Lo-lo and Saraw
43 Phil. 19 (1922)

Piracy is robbery or forcible depredation on

the high seas, without lawful authority and done
animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of
universal hostility. Piracy is a crime not against a
particular State but against all mankind. It may
be punished in the competent tribunal of any
country where the offender may be found or into
which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of
piracy unlike all other crimes has no territorial
limits.
 Prospectivity

Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the

contrary is provided. [Civil Code, art. 4]

One of the universally accepted characteristics of a

penal law is prospectivity. This general principle of criminal
law is embodied in Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that “no felony shall be punishable by any
penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission,” and
was applied by the Supreme Court in two early cases to
mean that no act or omission shall be held to be a crime,
nor its author punished, except by virtue of a law in force
at the time the act was committed. [People v. Derilo, 271
SCRA 633, 662-663 (1997)]
 Effectivity of the Revised Penal Code

The Revised Penal Code shall take effect on 1

January 1932. [Article 1, Revised Penal Code]
 Penalties that may be imposed

No felony shall be punishable by any penalty

not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
[Article 21, Revised Penal Code]
 Exception to the prospectivity principle

Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect

insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony,
who is not a habitual criminal as defined in Rule
5 of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code,
although at the time of the publication of such
laws a final sentence has been pronounced and
the convict is serving the same. [Article 22,
Revised Penal Code]
 Habitual delinquent

A person shall be deemed to be a habitual

delinquent, if within a period of ten (10) years
from the date of his release or last conviction of
the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo (robbery), hurto (theft), estafa or
falsification, he is found guilty of any of said
crimes a third time or oftener. [Rev. Pen. Code,
art. 62(5)]
 Requisites of habitual delinquency

1. That the offender has been convicted of any of the

crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery,
theft, estafa or falsification
 
2. That after that conviction or after serving his sentence,
he again committed, and, within ten (10) years from his
release or first conviction, he was again convicted of any of
the said crimes for the second time
 
3. That after his conviction of, or after serving sentence
for, the second offense, he again committed, and, within 10
years from his last release or last conviction, he was again
convicted of any of said offense, the third time or oftener
[Luis B. Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book I, Sixteenth
Edition, 2006, p. 719]
People v. Ringor
320 SCRA 342 (1999)
Gumabon v. Director of Prisons
37 SCRA 420 (1971)