ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF LAW
 Branch of municipal law which defines crimes, treats of
their nature and provides for their punishment.
 Branch of public substantive law which defines offenses
and prescribes their penalties.
 The term “special law,” for purposes of criminal law, is one
which is not amendatory of the provisions of the Code but
which defines and punishes offenses not covered by the
latter. (U.S. v. Serapio, 23 Phil. 584)
3
 Acts of the legislature prohibiting certain acts or omissions
and establishing penalties for their violations.
 Those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide
for their punishment. (Lacson v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No.
128096, January 20, 1999.)

4
Whether a statute is a penal law is determined by the
presence of the following elements:
a) The law must define the criminal act;
b) It must prescribe a penalty; and
c) It must be an act of the legislature.
• The right of the State to restrain and impose
punishment on criminals is anchored on its police power
(People v. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440)
• Every law for the restraint and punishment of crimes
and for the preservation of the public peace, health
and morals comes within the police power of the State.

6
a) Must not violate the equal protection clause of the
Constitution.
b) It must observe substantive and procedural due process
c) Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment nor
excessive fines.
d) Must not partake the nature of an “ex post facto law”.
e) Must not partake of the nature of a “bill of attainder”.
7
Felony - A crime under the Revised Penal Code is referred to as
felony.
Offense - A crime punished under a special law is called as
statutory offense.
Misdemeanor - A minor infraction of the law, such as a violation
of an ordinance, is referred to as a misdemeanor.
Crime - Whether the wrongdoing is punished under the Revised
Penal Code or under a special law, the generic word
crime can be used.
8
1. Classical or juristic
• Basis of criminal responsibility is the exercise of offender’s free will
• Penalty for criminal act is by way of retribution
2. Positivist or realistic
• Basis of criminal liability is the sum of social and economic phenomena
to which the actor was exposed
• Penalty imposed is for preventive or corrective purposes
3. Eclectic or mixed
• The treatment of crimes should be based on whether they are heinous or
they are merely economic or social in beginnings.
9
4) Utilitarian or protective theory
• The primary purpose of punishment under criminal law is the
protection of society from actual and potential wrongdoers.
• The courts, therefore, in exacting retribution for the wrong society,
should direct the punishment to potential or actual wrongdoers since
criminal law is directed against acts or omissions which the society
does not approve.
• Consistent with this theory is the mala prohibita principle which punishes
an offense regardless of malice of criminal intent.

10
 MALA IN SE vs. MALA PROHIBITA
Crimes mala in se Crimes mala prohibita
Acts or omissions penalized are inherently bad, Acts penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but
evil, or wrong that they are almost universally prohibited by law for public good, public welfare or
condemned. interest and whoever violates the prohibition are penalized.

Good faith or lack of criminal intent/ negligence Good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a
is a defense. defense; it is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily
violated.
Criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes Criminal liability is generally incurred only when the crime
mala in se even when the crime is only is consummated.
attempted or frustrated
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances are Such circumstances are not appreciated unless the special
appreciated in imposing the penalties law has adopted the nomenclature, scheme or scale of
penalties under the Revised Penal Code.
11
ELEMENTS OF CRIMES MALA IN SE

1. Actus reus (guilty act)

2. Mens rea (guilty state of mind)

• A crime malum in se is not committed if the mind of the

person doing the act is innocent.
• Without a guilty mind or criminal intent, there is no crime.

12
ELEMENTS OF A GUILTY MIND (mens rea)
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Intent

• Together, they make up the mens rea behind the criminal act.
• Without the required mens rea or when the mind is innocent,
no crime is committed.

13
• When an act is malum prohibitum, ”[i]t is the commission of that act as defined by the
law, and not the character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the
provision has been violated.”
• The general rule is that acts punished under a special law are malum prohibitum. “An
act which is declared malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely
immaterial.” In contrast, crimes mala in se concern inherently immoral acts.
• Implicit in the concept of mala in se is that of mens rea. Mens rea is defined as “the
non-physical element which, combined with the act of the accused, makes up the crime
charged. Most frequently it is the criminal intent, or the guilty mind[.]”

14
• Crimes mala in se presuppose that the person who did the felonious act
had criminal intent to do so, while crimes mala prohibita do not require
knowledge or criminal intent.
• In the case of mala in se, it is necessary, to constitute a punishable offense,
for the person doing the act to have knowledge of the nature of his act
and to have a criminal intent; in the case of mala prohibita, unless such
words as “knowingly” and “willfully” are contained in the statute, neither
knowledge nor criminal intent is necessary. In other words, a person
morally quite innocent and with every intention of being a law-abiding
citizen becomes a criminal, and liable to criminal penalties, if he does an
act prohibited by these statutes.

15
• Hence, “intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be
distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he
did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime
itself.” When an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered injurious to public
welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
• Volition, or intent to commit the act, is different from criminal intent. Volition or
voluntariness refers to knowledge of the act being done. On the other hand, criminal
intent – which is different from motive, or the moving power for the commission of the
crime – refers to the state of mind beyond voluntariness. It is this intent that is being
punished by crimes mala in se.

- Datu Guimid P. Matalam v. People of the Philippines

(G.R. Nos. 221849-50, April 04, 2016)
16
• Failure to remit the HDMF contributions and loan payments of
hospital employees (violation of P.D. No. 1752, as amended by
R.A. No. 7742) is mala prohibita.
• It is a general principle in law that in malum prohibitum case, good
faith or motive is not a defense because the law punishes the
prohibited act itself. The penal clause of Section 23 of P.D. No.
1752, as amended, however, punishes the failure to make
remittance only when such failure is without lawful cause or with
fraudulent intent.
17
Is good faith a valid defense for technical malversation?
• [C]riminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act
of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the
prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because
positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order,
and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the
character or effect thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been
violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely irrelevant.
• Dura lex sed lex. Ysidoro’s act, no matter how noble or miniscule the amount diverted,
constitutes the crime of technical malversation. The law and this Court, however,
recognize that his offense is not grave, warranting a mere fine.
18
• The better approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita
crimes is the determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the
penalized act. If the punishable act or omission is immoral in itself, then it
is a crime mala in se; on the contrary, if it is not immoral in itself, but there
is a statute prohibiting its commission by reasons of public policy, then it is
mala prohibita. In the final analysis, whether or not a crime involves moral
turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all
the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute.
• The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum.

19
• Recognizing the malum prohibitum characteristic of hazing, the law
provides that any person charged with the said crime shall not be
entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to
commit so grave a wrong. Also, the framers of the law intended that the
consent of the victim shall not be a defense in hazing.
• It was made malum prohibitum to discount criminal intent and disallow the
defense of good faith. It took into consideration the different participants
and contributors in the hazing activities. While not all acts cited in the law
are penalized, the penalties imposed therein involve various and serious
terms of imprisonment to discourage would be offenders.

20
Is a violation of Section 195 of the OEC mala in se such that good faith and lack of
criminal intent can be raised as valid defenses against its conviction?
• An act prohibited by a special law does not automatically make it malum prohibitum.
When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in se,
even if they are punished by a special law. The bench and bar must rid themselves of
the common misconception that all mala in se crimes are found in the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), while all mala prohibita crimes are provided by special laws. The better
approach to distinguish between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes is the
determination of the inherent immorality or vileness of the penalized act.

21
• [I]t is clear that to determine the presence of an accused's intent to
perpetrate a prohibited act, courts may look into the meaning and scope
of the prohibition beyond the literal wording of the law. Although
in malum prohibitum offenses, the act itself constitutes the crime, courts
must still be mindful of practical exclusions to the law’s coverage,
particularly when a superficial and narrow reading of the same with
result to absurd consequences. Further, as in People v. De
Gracia and Mendoza v. People, temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless
commission of prohibited acts were considered as an indication of the
absence of an intent to perpetrate the offense.

22
• When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are deemed mala in
se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly, criminal intent must be
clearly established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is
committed.

• The petitioner was convicted of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. No.
7610, a special law. However, physical abuse of a child is inherently wrong,
rendering material the existence of a criminal intent on the part of the offender.
(citing Jester P. Mabunot v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 204659, September
19, 2016)

23
• [T]he crimes penalized under Sections 5(i) and 5(e) of R.A. 9262 are
mala in se, not mala prohibita, even though R.A. 9262 is a special
penal law. The acts punished therein are inherently wrong or
depraved, and the language used under the said penal law requires
a mental element. Being a crime mala in se, there must thus be a
concurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to constitute the crime.
“Actus reus pertains to the external or overt acts or omissions included
in a crime’s definition while mens rea refers to the accused's guilty
state of mind or criminal intent accompanying the actus reus.”

24
• It is not enough, therefore, for the woman to experience mental or emotional anguish, or for
her partner to deny financial support that is legally due her. In order for criminal liability to
arise under Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262, insofar as it deals with “denial of financial support,”
there must, therefore, be evidence on record that the accused willfully or consciously withheld
financial support legally due the woman for the purpose of inflicting mental or emotional
anguish upon her. In other words, the actus reus of the offense under Section 5(i) is the willful
denial of financial support, while the mens rea is the intention to inflict mental or emotional
anguish upon the woman. Both must thus exist and be proven in court before a person may be
convicted of violating Section 5(i) of R.A. 9262.
• [T]o be convicted under Section 5(i), the evidence must establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused intended to cause the victim mental or emotional anguish, or
public ridicule or humiliation through the denial of - not the mere failure or inability to
provide - financial support, which thereby resulted into psychological violence.

25
 CRIME/FELONY CATEGORY JURISPRUDENCE
Violation of Republic Act No. 8291, Sec. 52g Mala prohibita Datu Guimid P. Matalam v. People of the Philippines
(Non-remittance of employer’s share of GSIS and (G.R. Nos. 221849-50, April 04, 2016)
Pag-IBIG Fund premiums).
Failure to remit the HDMF contributions and loan Mala prohibita Editha B. Saguin and Lani D. Grado v. People of the
payments of hospital employees (violation of P.D. Philippines (G.R. No. 210603, November 25, 2015) -
No. 1752, as amended by R.A. No. 7742) Failure to make remittance is punishable only when
such failure is without lawful cause or with fraudulent
intent
Violation of Article 220 of the Revised Penal Mala prohibita Arnold James M. Ysidoro v. People of the Philippines
Code (Illegal use of public funds or property) (G.R. No. 192330, November 14, 2012)
Violation of the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 Mala prohibita Dandy L. Dungo and Gregorio A. Sibal, Jr. vs. People
(Republic Act No. 8749 as amended by Republic of the Philippines (G.R. No. 192330, November 14,
Act No. 11053) 2012)
Violation of Sec. 27(b) of Republic Act No. 6646 Mala in se Arsenia B. Garcia v. Court of Appeals and People of
otherwise known as The Electoral Reforms Law of the Philippines (G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006)
9187 (tampering, increasing, or decreasing the
votes received by a candidate in any election by
any member of the board of election inspector 26
 CRIME/FELONY CATEGORY JURISPRUDENCE
Violation of Sec. 195 of the Omnibus Election Code Mala in se Amalia G. Cardona v. People of the Philippines
or Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (intentionally putting in (G.R. No. 244544, July 06, 2020 )
said ballot a distinguishing mark and using means to
identify the vote of the voters)
Estafa under Article 315 2(d) of the RPC (criminal Mala in se Iluminada Batac v. People of the Philippines
fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check) (G.R. No. 191622, June 06, 2018)
Violation of BP 22 (Anti-Bouncing Check Law) Mala Iluminada Batac v. People of the Philippines
prohibita (G.R. No. 191622, June 06, 2018)
Violation of Presidential Decree 1612 (Fencing) Mala Benito Estrella y Gili v. People of the
prohibita Philippines (G.R. No. 212942, June 17, 2020)
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Mala in se People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Racho y
Revised Penal Code Somera (G.R. No. 227505, October 02,
2017)
27
 CRIME/FELONY CATEGORY JURISPRUDENCE
Illegal recruitment (Section 6 of Republic Act No. Mala People of the Philippines v. Erlinda Racho y Somera
8042 as amended by Republic Act No. 10022) prohibita (G.R. No. 227505, October 02, 2017)
Sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877 Mala Escandor vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No.
prohibita 211962, July 06, 2020)
Violation of Section 77 of Presidential Decree Mala Diosdado Sama y Hinupas and Bandy Masanglay y
705 or the Revised Forestry Code of the prohibita Aceveda (G.R. No. 224469, January 05, 2021)
Philippines (cutting of timber without permit or
any authority granted by the State)
Physical abuse under Section 3(b) of R.A. No. Mala in se Evangeline Patulot y Galia v. People of the
7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection Philippines (G.R. No. 235071, January 07, 2019);
of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Jester P. Mabunot v. People of the Philippines (G.R.
Discrimination Act No. 204659, September 19, 2016)
Violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 Mala Republic of the Philippines v. Maria Lourdes P. A.
(Non-submission of the SALN) prohibita Sereno (G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)
28
 CRIME/FELONY CATEGORY JURISPRUDENCE
Illegal possession of firearms and explosives Mala prohibita People v. Rodolfo Dela Rosa y Aviles, et al. (G.R.
No. 84857, January 16, 1998) - Temporary,
incidental, casual, or harmless possession of
firearms is not punishable (lack of animus
possidendi)
Republic Act No. 7080 as amended by Mala in se Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 148560,
Republic Act No. 7659 (Plunder) 19 November 2001)
Violation of Sections 5(i) and 5(e) of Mala in se Christian Pantonial Acharon v. People of the
Republic Act No. 9262 Philippines (G.R. No. 224946, November 9,
2021)

29
1. Generality (WHO)
Criminal law applies to every person within the territory of the
Philippines.

2. Territoriality (WHERE)
Criminal law always has effect within or inside the Philippine territory.

3. Prospectivity (WHEN)
Acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are
committed AFTER a penal law had already taken effect.
30
1. Generality
• Contemplates the application of Criminal Law to every
person within the Philippine territory
• 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 (Art. 14, NCC)

31
Criminal law applies to every person within the territory of
the Philippines:
a.Regardless of his color, sex, age, social status, position,
or other personal circumstance;
b.Regardless if the person is a transient (does not live or
reside in the Philippines); and
c. Regardless of his nationality

32
a. Treaties or treaty stipulations
b. Laws of preferential application
c. Principles of Public International Law

33
a. Treaties or treaty stipulations
• With the developments in international relations, executive agreements are, for
purposes hereof, placed on the same level as a treaty. (Criminal Law Conspectus,
Florenz D. Regalado, 2003 Revised Edition, p.5)
• The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the
United Nations – it exempts certain UN officials from the application of criminal
law while in the Philippines (e.g. certain WHO officials)
• Agreement between ADB and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
provides that “officers and staff of the Bank, including for the purpose of this
Article experts and consultants performing missions for the Bank, shall enjoy
immunity from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official
capacity except when the Bank waives the immunity. (Section 45[a]).

34
b. Laws of preferential application
• Republic Act No. 75 – 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.
• Sec. 4 extends the privilege to the domestic or domestic servant of the
ambassador or minister
• Consuls, vice-consuls and other commercial representatives of foreign nations
do not possess the status of, and cannot claim the privileges and immunities
accorded to ambassadors and ministers.
• Diplomatic privileges and immunities would not apply when the foreign
government does not provide similar protection to our diplomatic
representatives.
35
c. Principles of Public International Law
• Sovereigns, heads of state and persons with diplomatic
status and immunity (ambassadors, ministers,
plenipotentiary, ministers resident, charges d’affaires,
head of ADB, etc.) are not subject to local prosecution.
• These persons cannot be sued, arrested or punished by
the law of the country of their sojourn.

36
Consular Officers
• Despite the ruling in Schneckenburger vs. Moran, consular
officers and employees are now enjoying immunity from
criminal prosecution of acts performed in the exercise of
consular function under the 1967 Convention on Consular
Relation. Slander (Liang vs. People, GR NO 125865,
January 28, 2000) or reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide is not function-related. Consul is liable for
committing this crime.

37
PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
• The President of the Philippines is entitled to immunity from suit
subject to the following conditions: (1) the immunity has been
asserted; (2) during the period of his incumbency and tenure;
and (3) the act constituting the crime is committed in the
performance of his duties. Presidential immunity will assure the
exercise of presidential duties and functions free from any
hindrance or distraction, considering that the Chief Executive is
a job that demands undivided attention. (Estrada v. Desierto,
G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001)
38
 Rubrico et al. v. Macapagal Arroyo et al.
[627 Phil. 37, 62 (2010)]

It will degrade the dignity of the high office of the President, the Head of
State, if he can be dragged into court litigations while serving as such.
Furthermore, it is important that he be freed from any form of harassment,
hindrance or distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of
his official duties and functions. Unlike the legislative and judicial branch,
only one constitutes the executive branch and anything which impairs his
usefulness in the discharge of the many great and important duties
imposed upon him by the Constitution necessarily impairs the operation of
the Government.

39
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
• The job of the Vice President, unlike the head of the executive
department, does not demand undivided attention. Hence, the
circumstance, on which the presidential immunity is based, is not
obtaining if the position is vice-presidential (Judge Campanilla).
• The Constitution does not guarantee the vice president’s immunity. It’s
only the President who is immune [from suit] and that is based on
tradition, because he is busy handling affairs of the state. But that
cannot be said for the vice president. (Prof. Pacifico Agabin)
• No, the vice president is not immune…The Constitution doesn’t say he is
immune”. (Fr Joaquin Bernas SJ)

40
VICE-PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
• Some experts are saying that criminally prosecuting a vice-president
will violate Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution, which mandates
that the Vice President may be removed from office only through an
impeachment proceeding. It is submitted however that there is no
constitutional violation since in case of conviction, he can function as
Vice President while serving sentence in prison. However, accessory
penalty of disqualification, which involved removal from office, is not
implementable since the enforcement thereof will offend the
impeachment provision (Judge Campanilla).

41
2. Territoriality
• Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
provisions of the said code shall be enforced within the
Philippine archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior
waters and maritime zone.
• The territorial domain of the Philippines is set forth in Article 1
of the 1987 Constitution

42
 NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN
BRINKMAN VAN WILSEM
[G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014]

In addition, considering that respondent is currently living in the Philippines, we find

strength in petitioner’s claim that the Territoriality Principle in criminal law, in relation
to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides
that:“[p]enal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon
all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principle of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.” On this score, it is indisputable that the
alleged continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support his child with petitioner is
committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties herein are residents of the
Province of Cebu City. As such, our courts have territorial jurisdiction over the offense
charged against respondent. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the
respondent was acquired upon his arrest.
43
The Territoriality Principle

• Jurisdiction is based on the place where the offense was

committed.
• The fundamental source of jurisdiction is sovereignty over
territory.
• A state has absolute, but not necessarily exclusive, power to
prescribe, adjudicate and enforce rules for conduct that
occurs within its territory.

44
Effects Doctrine

• An aspect of the territoriality principle is the “effects

doctrine.”
• A state also has jurisdiction over acts occurring
outside its territory but having effects within it.

45
Effects Doctrine
1. Subjective territorial principle – a state has jurisdiction to
prosecute and punish for crime commenced within the state but
completed or consummated abroad.
2. Objective territorial principle – a state has jurisdiction to
prosecute and punish for crime commenced without the state but
consummated within its territory.

46
Nationality Principle

• Every state has jurisdiction over its nationals

even when those nationals are outside the
state.
• Jurisdiction is based on the nationality of the
offender

47
Protective Principle

• A state may exercise jurisdiction over conduct outside its

territory that threatens its security, as long as that
conduct is generally recognized as criminal by states in
the international community.
• Jurisdiction is based on whether the national interest is
injured.

48
Universality Principle
• Recognizes that certain activities, universally dangerous to states and
their subjects, require authority in all community members to punish
such acts wherever they may occur, even absent a link between the
state and the parties or the acts in question.
• Jurisdiction is conferred in any forum that obtains physical custody of
the perpetrator of certain offenses considered particularly heinous
and harmful to humanity.
• Example is piracy in the high seas. Pirates are in law hostes humani
generis. (People v. Lol-lo and Saraw, G.R. No. L-17958, February 27,
1992)
49
 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. 50
• Crimes committed on board a Philippine ship or airship (flag state rule);
• Crimes involving the forgery or counterfeiting of Philippine government
issued items, namely: coins, currency, obligation and securities
(protective principle).
• Crimes involving the introduction into the Philippines of obligations and
securities (territoriality);
• Crimes committed by public officers or employees while in the exercise
of their official functions (function-related crime); and
• Crimes against the national security of the Philippines and the law of
nations (protective principle; universality principle)

51
The underlying reasons behind the extra-territoriality rules are as follows:
• Under the flag state rule, a vessel registered in the Philippines is
considered an extension of the Philippines;
• The protective interest principle involving forgery and crimes against
national security seeks to protect the financial stability and existence of
the State;
• The extra-territorialiy principle involving function-related crime
committed by a public officer is designed to implement the constitutional
mandate on public accountability; and
• The universality principle involving piracy and mutiny protects vessels
while traveling on high seas, which is important in world trade and
commerce (Campanilla, Criminal Law Reviewer Volume 1, 2018).

52
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the crime is
committed while the ship is treading:
a) Philippine waters (intraterritorial application), or
b) The High Seas i.e. waters NOT under the jurisdiction
of any State (extraterritorial application)

53
• Philippine law shall apply to offenses committed in vessels or aircraft
registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
• It is the registration, not the citizenship of the owner that matters.
• Thus, if a crime is committed ten miles from the shores of the Philippines on
board a vessel belonging to a Filipino, but the same is not registered or
licensed in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, par. 1 of Art. 2 is not
applicable.

54
1. 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.
2. 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.

Note: Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses committed on board

foreign warships in territorial waters.
55
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 whose territory they
were committed. Of this 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 x x x.

56
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.
Moreover, as the Attorney-General aptly observes:

"The idea of a person smoking opium securely on board a foreign vessel at anchor in the
port of Manila in open defiance of the local authorities, who are impotent to lay hands on
him, is simply subversive of public order. It requires no unusual stretch of the imagination to
conceive that a foreign ship may come into the port of Manila and allow or solicit Chinese
residents to smoke opium on board."

57
GENERAL RULE: If a crime is committed inside a vessel which is in transitu, we
cannot apply our laws even if the act committed is punishable under the RPC.

EXCEPTION: If the crime involves a crime of public order.

58
Forging/Counterfeiting and Introducing Coins or
Currency Notes in the Philippines (Par. 2 & 3)
• Any person who makes false or counterfeit coins (Art. 163) or
forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations and securities
(Art. 166) in a foreign country may be prosecuted before our civil
courts.
• The introduction of forged or counterfeited obligations and
securities into the Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or
counterfeiting the same, to the economical interest of the country.

59
Commission by public officers or employees of an
offense in the exercise of their functions (Par. 4)
• As a general rule, the Revised Penal Code governs only when the crime
committed pertains to the exercise of the public official’s functions:
a) Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign
country.
b) The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law:
i) to be performed by the public officer
ii) in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government
iii) in a foreign country.

60
Crimes that may be committed in the exercise of
public functions
a. Direct bribery (Art. 210)
b. Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
c. Frauds against public treasury (Art. 213)
d. Possession of prohibited interest (Art. 216)
e. Malversation of public funds or property (Art. 217)
f. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts (Art. 218)
g. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220)
h. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art. 221)
i. Falsification by a public officer or employee committed with abuse of his official
position (Art. 171)

61
Commission of any of the Crimes Against
National Security and the Law of Nations (Par. 5)
Crimes Against National Security
1. Treason (Art. 114)
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
3. Misprision of treason (Art.116); and
4. Espionage (Art. 117)
Crimes Against the Law of Nations
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art.118)
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119)
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120)
4. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121)
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122)
6. Terrorism under Republic Act No. 11479 62
• May Philippine courts exercise jurisdiction over an
offense constituting psychological violence under
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, otherwise known as the
Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of
2004, committed through marital infidelity, when the
alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring outside
the country?

63
Certainly, the act causing psychological violence which under the
information relates to BBB's marital infidelity must be proven by probable
cause for the purpose of formally charging the husband, and to establish
the same beyond reasonable doubt for purposes of conviction. It likewise
remains imperative to acquire jurisdiction over the husband. What this case
concerns itself is simply whether or not a complaint for psychological abuse
under R.A. No. 9262 may even be filed within the Philippines if the illicit
relationship is conducted abroad. We say that even if the alleged extra
marital affair causing the offended wife mental and emotional anguish is
committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under R.A. No.
9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

64
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN
VAN WILSEM
[G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014]

• Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child
under Philippine law; and whether or not he can be held criminally liable under
R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to do so.
• Insofar as Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family
Code on support, the same only applies to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same
principle applies to foreigners such that they are governed by their national law
with respect to family rights and duties. The obligation to give support to a child is
a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Since the respondent is a citizen
of Holland or the Netherlands, x x x 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.
65
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN
VAN WILSEM
[G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014]
• 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, respondent
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 respondent
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 respondent to plead and prove that the national law of the
Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to support their child
(either before, during or after the issuance of a divorce decree), because Llorente v.
Court of Appeals, has already enunciated that: “True, 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.”
66
NORMA A. DEL SOCORRO v. ERNST JOHAN BRINKMAN
VAN WILSEM
[G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014]

• In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the

Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption
shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not
properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the
foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law.
Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to
support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the instant
case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which
enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and
penalizing the non-compliance therewith. 67
• For purpose of venue under the Rules of Criminal Procedure and territoriality principle in Article 2
of the Revised Penal Code, the place of commission of the criminal act and the place of
occurrence of the effect of such act, which is an element of the offense, shall be considered.
• If one pulled the trigger of his gun in Quezon City and hit the victim in City of Manila, who died
as a consequence, Quezon City and City of Manila, which are the places of commission of the
criminal act and the occurrence of the criminal effect, are proper venues.
• If the psychological violence consisting of marital infidelity punishable under RA No. 9262 is
committed in Singapore but the psychological effect occurred in the Philippines since the wife of
the respondent, who suffered mental anguish, is residing in the Philippines, our court can assume
jurisdiction (AAA v. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, January 11, 2018).
• However, if the commission of the criminal act consummates the crime and the effect thereof is not
an element thereof, the place of occurrence of the effect shall not be considered for purpose of
venue and territoriality rule. Bigamy committed in Singapore is beyond the jurisdiction of our court
although the offended spouse is residing in the Philippines since the psychological effect of
bigamy to her is not an element thereof. (Judge Campanilla, 2021 Pre-Week Reviewer in Criminal
Law)
68
• Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the flag state of a foreign merchant vessel
passing through the 12-mile territorial sea of another state has jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein.
• However, a coastal state such as the Philippines can exercise jurisdiction over any crime
committed on board such ship in the following cases: (1) if its consequences extend to the
coastal State; (2) if it disturbs the peace of the country or the good order of the
territorial sea; (3) if the ship master or a diplomatic or consular officer of the flag State
requested assistance from the local authorities; or (4) if it is for the suppression of traffic
in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
• Murder or serious physical injuries committed in a foreign vessel anchored in a Philippine
port against a passenger thereof is within the jurisdiction of the Philippine court since this
crime disturb the peace of the country. (Judge Campanilla, 2021 Pre-Week Reviewer in
Criminal Law)
69
• Refers to those not submerged in water during low and high tides.
Under Article 121 of UNCLOS, regime of islands are naturally
formed areas of land surrounded by water, which are above
water at high tide.
• Under the principle of territoriality, the court has also jurisdiction
over crime committed in Kalayaan Islands or Scarboruogh Shoal
because the Baseline Law (RA No. 9522) declares that the
Philippines exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over it. (Judge
Campanilla, 2021 Pre-Week Reviewer in Criminal Law)

70
• The Philippines has no sovereignty over the 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
Under the convention of the law of the sea, the Philippines has sovereign right to
fish and to exploit the natural resources in the zone. This sovereign right is not
equivalent to sovereignty. Under the convention, foreign states have the freedom
of navigation and overflight over the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines.
Freedom of navigation and overflight cannot be exercised in a place where a
State has sovereignty such as such its 12-mile territorial water. Under the
convention, the Philippines has limited jurisdiction over crimes committed within
the exclusive economic zone such as those involving fiscal, custom, immigration,
health and safety. A State has absolute jurisdiction over crimes committed in a
territory over which it has sovereignty subject only to a few exceptions under
international laws. The recognition of freedom of navigation and overflight and
the limited jurisdiction over crimes committed in the exclusive economic zone
militate against the concept of sovereignty.
• If a Chinese fishing vessel deliberately bumped a Filipino vessel in the West
Philippines Sea covered by the exclusive economic zone of the Philippines, and
as a consequence, several Filipino fishermen died, the Philippines’s jurisdiction
over the crime of murder cannot be based on the theory that the Philippines has
sovereignty over the zone. Other principles must be used to justify its jurisdiction
over murder committed within the zone such as flag state rule or universality
principle. (Judge Campanilla, 2021 Pre-Week Reviewer in Criminal Law)
71
3. Prospectivity
General Rule: Penal laws are prospective (not given retroactive effect).
Exception: Penal laws may be given retroactive effect if the law is
favorable to the accused.
Exceptions to the exception: Penal laws, although favorable to the accused,
may not be given retroactive effect when:
 It is expressly provided that the law cannot be given retroactive effect,
or
 The accused is a habitual delinquent

Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the punishability of an act must be

reasonably for the guidance of society.
72
73
• If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the new law, the new law
shall be applied.
• EXCEPT: When the offender is a habitual delinquent or when the new
law is made not applicable to pending actions or existing causes of
action.
• If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the law in force at the time
of the commission of the offense shall be applied.
• If the new law totally repeals the existing law so that the act which was
penalized under the old law is no longer punishable, the crime is
obliterated. (People v. Tamayo, 61 Phil 225).
74
• When the repeal is absolute the offense ceases to be criminal and the accused
should be acquitted (People v. Tamayo, 61 Phil. 225). UNLESS: the repealing law
contains a saving clause to the effect that the violations committed prior to the
repeal should be punished under the old law (Lagrimas v. Director of Prisons, 57 Phil.
247)
• If the repealing law does not punish the act which constituted a crime under the prior
law, the court loses jurisdiction over the case (People v. Pastor, et al., 77 Phil. 1000)
• If the repeal is not express but merely implied, as by reenactment, the court is not
deprived of jurisdiction as the criminal liability of the accused still subsists (U.S. v.
Cuna, 12 Phil. 241).

75
In construing penal statutes, as between two reasonable but
contradictory constructions, the one more favorable to the accused
should be upheld.
It is an ancient rule of statutory construction that penal statutes should be strictly construed
against the government or parties seeking to enforce statutory penalties and in favor of
the persons on whom penalties are sought to be imposed. This simply means that words are
given their ordinary meaning and that any reasonable doubt about the meaning is
decided in favor of anyone subjected to a criminal statute. This canon of interpretation has
been accorded the status of a constitutional rule under principles of due process, not
subject to abrogation by statute.
The rule that penal statutes should be strictly construed has several justifications based on a concern for the
rights and freedoms of accused individuals. Strict construction can assure fairness when courts understand it to
mean that penal statutes must give a clear and unequivocal warning, in language people generally
understand, about actions that would result in liability and the nature of potential penalties. A number of
courts have said:

… the rule that penal statutes are to be strictly construed … is a fundamental principle which in our judgment
will never be altered. Why? Because the lawmaking body owes the duty to citizens and subjects of making
unmistakably clear those acts for the commission of which the citizen may lose his life or liberty. Therefore, all
the canons of interpretation which apply to civil statutes apply to criminal statutes, and in addition there
exists the canon [of strict construction] …. The burden lies on the lawmakers, and inasmuch as it is within their
power, it is their duty to relieve the situation of all doubts.

xxxx

Additionally, strict construction protects the individual against arbitrary discretion by officials and judges. As
one judge noted: "the courts should be particularly careful that the bulwarks of liberty are not overthrown, in
order to reach an offender who is, but perhaps ought not to be, sheltered behind them."

• People of the Philippines v. Beth Temporada,

G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008
In dubio pro reo
When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with
the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be
presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established
beyond reasonable doubt.

• Separate Opinion of Justice Renato Corona in

People of the Philippines v. Beth Temporada, G.R.
No. 173473, December 17, 2008
 QUESTION and ANSWER

Aaron is a defendant in a civil case being tried in the Manila Regional Trial
Court. Together with his lawyer, Aaron went to Singapore to take the deposition of a
witness who, Aaron hopes, would support his defense. The deposition was taken in
a function room of the Singapore Hotel before Mr. Aguila, the Philippine Consul
General. Neither plaintiff nor his counsel attended the proceeding. After the
deposition taking, Aaron, not satisfied with the results, persuaded Aguila to make
substantial changes, offered $5,000.00 in Singaporean currency which Aguila
readily accepted. Leona, vacationing daughter of Aguila was given $200.00 by
Aaron when she made the alterations in the transcripts. The deponent, with neither
notice nor knowledge of the alterations, signed the deposition. May Aaron, Aguila
and Leona be prosecuted in Philippine court for offenses punishable under our
Revised Penal Code?
- (Question No. 1, 1986 Bar)
79
 QUESTION and ANSWER

Which of the following crimes is an exception to the

Territoriality Rule in Criminal law?

A. Violation of the Trademark Law committed by an

alien in the Philippines.
B. Forgery of US bank notes committed in the
Philippines.
C. Crime committed by a Filipino in the disputed
Spratly's Island.
D. Plunder committed at his place of assignment abroad
by a Philippine public officer.

- Question No. 53, 2011 Bar Exams (Set A)

80
 QUESTION and ANSWER

When committed outside the Philippine territory, our

courts DO NOT have jurisdiction over the crime of

A. treason.
B. piracy.
C. espionage.
D. rebellion.

- Question No. 56, 2011 Bar Exams (Set A)

81
 QUESTION and ANSWER

What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew

murders the Filipino captain on board a vessel of
Russian registry while the vessel is anchored
outside the breakwaters of the Manila bay?

A. The Indonesian court.

B. The Russian court.
C. The Philippine court.
D. Any court that first asserts jurisdiction over the case.

- Question No. 73, 2011 Bar Exams (Set A)

82
 QUESTION and ANSWER

Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage

with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie
returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and
wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can
Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 Bar)

83
 QUESTION and ANSWER

After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two
plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio
My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The
vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a
rich Filipino businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific"
reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel
turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An
information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the
information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you
grant the motion? Why? (2000 Bar)

84
 QUESTION and ANSWER
Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert
took graduate studies in New York and met his former
girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and finally
decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
marriage and secures a copy of the marriage contract in New
York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert in the
Philippines.

Will the case prosper? Explain.

If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will

your answer be? Explain. (Bar 2008)

85
 QUESTION and ANSWER

Principles of public international law exempt certain

individuals from the Generality characteristic of criminal law.
Who among the following are NOT exempt from the
Generality rule?

A. Ministers Resident
B. Commercial Attache of a foreign country
C. Ambassador
D. Chiefs of Mission

- Question No. 6, 2011 Bar Exams (Set A)

86
 QUESTION and ANSWER

When a penal law is absolutely repealed such that the

offense is decriminalized, a pending case charging the
accused of the repealed crime is to be

A. prosecuted still since the charge was valid when filed.

B. dismissed without any precondition.
C. dismissed provided the accused is not a habitual
delinquent.
D. prosecuted still since the offended party has a vested
interest in the repealed law.

- Question No. 18, 2011 Bar Exams (Set A)

87
 QUESTION and ANSWER

Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on

EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was
crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic
immunity. Is Pierce correct?

Question No. XVII – 2014 Bar

88
 QUESTION and ANSWER

Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-Subversion Law, making

it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of
the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the
Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership
in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now
challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise?

Question No. V – 2014 Bar

89
 QUESTION and ANSWER
Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines, was about to depart for Hong Kong via an Indonesian-
registered commercial vessel. While on board the vessel, which was still docked at the port of
Manila, she saw her mortal enemy, Ms. A, an Australian citizen. Ms. A was seated at the front portion
of the cabin and was busy using her laptop, with no idea whatsoever that Ms. M was likewise
onboard the ship.
Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M stealthily approached the Australian from behind, and
then quickly stabbed her neck with a pocketknife, resulting in Ms. A's immediate death. Operatives
from the Philippine National Police - Maritime Command arrested Ms. M for the killing of Ms. A
and thereafter, intended to charge her under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Ms. M contended that
the provisions of the RPC cannot be applied and enforced against her because both she and the
victim are not Filipino nationals, and besides, the alleged crime was committed in an Indonesian-
registered vessel.
(a) Is Ms. M's contention against the application of the RPC against her tenable? Explain.

Question No. B11 – 2019 Bar

90