ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQR

STUVWXYZ

PRO REO

In dubio pro reo is means

"when in doubt, for the accused.
Intimately related to the in dubio
pro reo principle is the rule of
lenity. The rule applies when the
court is faced with two possible
interpretations of a penal statute,
one that is prejudicial to the
accused and another that is
favorable to him. The rule calls for
the adoption of an interpretation
which is more lenient to the
accused (Intestate estate of
Gonzales vs. People, G.R. No.
181409, February 11, 2010).
POSITIVIST THEORY AND
CLASSICAL THERORY

The positivist theory states that

the basis for criminal liability is
the sum total of the social and
economic phenomena to which
the offense is expressed. The
purpose of penalties is to secure
justice. The penalties imposed
must not only be retributive but
must also be reformative, to give
the convict an opportunity to live
a new life and rejoin society as a
productive and civic-spirited
member of the community. The
adoption of the aspects of the
Positivist theory is exemplified by
the indeterminate sentence law,
impossible crime, privilege
mitigating circumstance of
minority and modifying
circumstances, rule on imposition
of penalties for heinous and
quasi-heinous crimes) (Joya vs.
Jail Warden of Batangas, G.R. Nos.
159418-19, December 10, 2003;).

Under the classical theory, man

is essentially a moral creature
with an absolutely free will choose
between good and evil. When he
commits a felonious or criminal
act, the act is presumed to have
been done voluntarily, i.e. with
freedom, intelligence and intent.
Man, therefore, should be
adjudged or held accountable for
wrongful acts so long as free will
appears unimpaired (People vs.
Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June
19, 2000). Since the Revised
Penal Code is based on the
classical school of thought, it is
the identity of the mens rea which
is considered the predominant
consideration and, therefore,
warrants the imposition of the
same penalty for conspirators on
the consequential theory that the
act of one is thereby the act of all
(Hon. Sandiganbayan, Honrado,
G.R. No. 115439-41, July 16,
1997). Under this theory, the
criminal liability is based on the
result of the felonious act
(proximate cause rule).

CHARACTERISTIC OF CRIMINAL
LAW

There are three characteristics

of criminal law, to wit: (1)
generality (2) territoriality, and
(3) prospectivity. The general,
territorial and prospective
characteristics of criminal law are
principles that define and
demarcate the scope and
limitation of the operation of
criminal law. Under these three
principles, the operation or
enforceability of criminal law is
limited to wrongful acts
committed on or after its
effectivity (prospectivity) within
the territory of the Philippines
(territoriality) by person living
and sojourning therein
(generality).

GENERALITY - Generality
principle is akin to territoriality
principle in the sense that the
demarcating factor of both
principles is the territory of the
Philippines. Under generality
principle, criminal law is
enforceable to person living or
sojourning in the territory of the
Philippines. Under the
territoriality principle, criminal
law is applicable only to criminal
act committed within the territory
of the Philippines. But the
concept of generality is different
from territoriality. The
applicability of territoriality
principle or generality principle
will depend on the issue raised by
the accused in questioning the
jurisdiction of the court. If the
accused attacks the jurisdiction of
the court because of the unique
characteristic of his person (e.g.
he is a foreigner, military, hermit,
primitive, ambassador, legislator,
President), the applicable
principle is generality. If the
accused attacks the jurisdiction of
the court due to the unique
characteristic of the place where
the crime was committed (e.g.
the place of commission is foreign
vessel, embassy or high sea) etc,
the applicable principle is
territoriality.

1. Military officers - The

Revised Penal Code and special
criminal laws are enforceable
against military men living or
sojourning in the Philippines.
However, CA 408 (Articles of War)
which vests jurisdiction over
members of the AFP to the
courts-martial. RA 7055 (AN ACT
STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN
SUPREMACY OVER THE MILITARY)
did not divest the military courts
of jurisdiction to try cases
involving "service-connected
crimes or offenses" under CA 408
(Example: Mutiny or sedition,
quarrels, frays; disorders,
breaking an arrest or escaping
from confinement, releasing
prisoners without proper
authority, wrongful appropriation
of captured property,
corresponding with, or aiding the
enemy, spies, dueling, fraud
against the government affecting
matters and equipment). In fact,
RA No. 7055 mandates that these
service-connected crimes shall be
tried by the court-martial
(Navales v. Abaya, G.R. No.
162318, October 25, 2004). CA
408 is a law of preferential
application since it excludes
members of the AFP from the
operation of the Revised Penal
Code and special criminal laws if
the crimes committed by them
are service-connected as defined
by RA 7055.

2. 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 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.

TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE:
Under the principle of
territoriality, the Philippines has
jurisdiction over crimes
committed inside its territory
except as provided in the treaties
and laws of preferential
application.

1. Embassy - The ground

occupied by US embassy is in fact
the territory of the USA to which
the premises belong through
possession or ownership. A
person who committed a crime
within the premises of an
embassy will be prosecuted
under the law of Philippines
because of the principle of
territoriality (See: Reagan vs.
Commission on Internal Revenue,
30 SCRA 968, En Banc; Answers
to 2009 Bar Examination
Questions by UP Law Complex).
However, jurisdiction of the
Philippines over the embassy is
limited or restricted by the
principles of inviolability of
diplomatic premises, which is a
generally accepted principle of
international law. Warrant of
arrest cannot be served inside US
embassy without waiver of
American government of its right
under the principle of inviolability.

2. English rule - There are two

fundamental rules in International
Law regarding crimes committed
aboard a foreign merchant vessel
(not military vessel), if the same
is within the 12-mile territorial
water (not internal or archipelagic
water or high seas) of the
Philippines to wit: (1) French rule -
Crimes committed aboard a
foreign merchant vessel within
the territorial water of the
Philippines are subject to the
jurisdiction of the flag state
(extra-territoriality principle)
unless their commission affects
the peace and security of our
country. (2) English rule Crimes
committed aboard a foreign
merchant vessel within the
territorial water of the Philippines
are subject to jurisdiction of the
Philippines (territoriality principle)
unless their commission does not
affect its peace and security, or
has no pernicious effect therein.
It is the English rule that obtains
in this jurisdiction.

3. Convention of the law of the

Sea - Under the Convention on
the Law of the Sea, the flag state
of foreign merchant vessel
passing through the territorial sea
has jurisdiction over crimes
committed therein. However, the
Philippines can exercise
jurisdiction to arrest any person
or to conduct any investigation in
connection with any crime
committed on board the ship
during its passage in the
following cases: (1) if the
consequences of the crime
extend to the coastal State; (2) if
the crime is of a kind to disturb
the peace of the country or the
good order of the territorial sea;
(3) if the assistance of the local
authorities has been requested
by the master of the ship or by a
diplomatic agent or consular
officer of the flag State; or (4) if
such measures are necessary for
the suppression of illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances.

4. Drug trafficking - Following

the English rule, the Philippines
has no jurisdiction over
transportation of opium in a
foreign vessel in transit in
territorial water of our country
because possession of opium
does not have a pernicious effect
on our country (U.S. vs. Look
Chaw). But under the Convention
of the law of the Sea, the
Philippines can exercise
jurisdiction to arrest any person
or to conduct any investigation
involving transportation of
dangerous drugs since this is a
measure necessary for the
suppression of illicit traffic in
narcotic drugs or psychotropic
substances.