CRIMINAL LAW Definitions Criminal law - that branch of public substantive law which defines crimes, treats of their

nature, and provides for their punishment. Special law - for purposes of criminal law, is one which is not amendatory of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code but which defines and punishes offenses not covered by the latter (U.S. vs Serapio, 23 Phil. 584). classical theory - the basis of criminal responsibility is the existence of the offender's free will and the penalty for his criminal act is by way of retribution. (The Revised Penal Code, having been based on the Spanish Penal Code of 1870 which extensively drew upon the provisions of the French Penal Code of 1810, clearly belongs to the classical school). positivist school - the basis of criminal liability is the sum of social and economic phenomena to which the actor was exposed, hence the penalty imposed is for preventive or corrective purposes. (However, some provisions essentially draw from or are influenced by the positivist theory of penology, e.g., the provisions on impossible crimes (Art. 4[2]) and habitual delinquency (Art. 62[5]). 5) The right of the State to restrain and impose punishment on criminals is anchored on its police power (People vs. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440) Generality - The Code applies to all persons who commit felonies in Philippine territory, regardless of nationality, gender, age or other personal circumstances (see also Art. 14, Civil Code). Philippine criminal laws are binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory when one commits a crime in the Philippines, whether he is a resident citizen, alien, resident alien, a transient, or a tourist, he is subject to prosecution before Philippine courts. That is what you mean by the general character of criminal law. ((1) Thus, the civil courts have jurisdiction regardless of the military character of the accused (U.S. vs. Sweet, 1 Phil. 18; U.S. vs. Tubig, 3 Phil. 244; People vs. Livara, 94 Phil. 771). (2) If the same act is punished under the Code and the Articles of War, the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts-martial, even in time of war if the former are open and functioning (Valdez vs. Lucero, etc., et al., 76 Phil. 356), and conviction by either court constitutes jeopardy (Crisologo vs. People, et al., 94 Phil. 477). However, if the court-martial acquired jurisdiction first, the civil court loses its jurisdiction over the case (Arula vs. Espino, et al., G. R. No. L-28949, June 23, 1969).

Treaty stipulations - With the developments in international relations, executive agreements are, for purposes hereof, placed on the same level as a treaty. Examples of this exception are Art. XIII of the former Military Bases Agreement between the Philippines and the United States (see 43 O.G. 1020) and their recent Status of Visiting Forces Agreement. Laws of preferential application - These are exemplified by Sec. 11, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution which grants immunity from prosecution to congressmen and senators; and R.A. 75 which penalizes the procurement and enforcement of criminal processes against diplomats, their domestics and servants, subject to the conditions provided therefor. Principles of public international law - It is generally accepted that sovereigns, heads of state, and persons with diplomatic status and immunity are not subject to the provisions of the Code, but consuls and consular officers are not exempt from local prosecution (Schneckenburger vs. Moran, etc., 63 Phil. 249). Also, public vessels of a friendly foreign power are not subject to local jurisdiction (see U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614). It has likewise been held that as a matter of international practice, members of a foreign army stationed in the Philippines with its consent are generally exempt from criminal jurisdiction subject to such agreements as may have been entered into in connection therewith, which agreement need not be a treaty (see Raquiza vs. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50). Territoriality- The Code applies to all offenses committed within Philippine territory. (1) The national territory of the Philippines consists of its territorial, fluvial and aerial domain, as well as its maritime zone. That territorial domain is set forth in Art. I of the 1987 Constitution. (2) The maritime zone, as then accepted in international law, was 3 geographical miles from the shore, starting at the low water mark (I Oppenheim, International Law, p. 241). Note, however, R.A. 3046 which delineates the extent of Philippine territorial jurisdiction in accordance with the baselines theory. See also the Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding archipelagic territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Under said convention, the territorial sea extends 12 nautical miles, and the exclusive economic zone is 200 nautical miles, outward from the shores of the country. French or nationality rule - the Philippines has no jurisdiction, unless the crime affects the peace and security of the country.

English or territoriality rule, the country has jurisdiction over such offenses, unless the same affect or refer only to the internal management of the vessel. (Our criminal justice system applies the English rule. Thus, it has been held that mere possession of opium on a merchant ship in transit is not triable by our courts; but if such vessel is not in transit as its terminal port is the Philippines, it may involve illegal importation of opium (U.S. vs. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978). If the drug is landed on Philippine soil (U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573), or the opium is smoked aboard the vessel in Manila Bay (People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729), prosecution will lie since these specified acts are in open defiance of our laws and are breaches of the public order.) Prospectivity- The Code has no retroactive effect (Art. 366), unless its provisions would be favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent (Art. 22), except where the later law provides against such retrospective effect (Tavera vs. Valdez, 1 Phil. 468).

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS If there is doubt, the doubt is resolved in favor of the accused. Thus, applying the constitutional presumption of innocence. But this rule of construction is applied only where the law is ambiguous, and there is doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law is clear, there is no room for the application of this rule. But there is also a special rule of construction. In the construction or interpretation of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text is controlling because the Code was approved by the Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text. This was the language of the lawmakers in expressing the intent of the law. If there is a conflict between the English version and the Spanish version of the Revised Penal Code, the Spanish text shall prevail. Rules of construction of the Code -a. Its provisions are construed strictly against the State and any doubt is resolved in favor of the accused (U.S. vs. Abad Santos, 36 Phil. 243; People vs. Uy Jui Pio, 102 Phil. 679). b. Since Act No. 3815 was written and enacted in Spanish, the original Spanish text of the law prevails over the English text or translation. Instances of the application of this rule by the Supreme Court in particular cases will be explained under the corresponding article where each case will be cited (see People vs. Manaba, 58 Phil. 665; People vs. Mesias, 65 Phil. 267; People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172; People vs. Mangulabnan, et al., 99 Phil. 992; People vs. Geronimo, 100 Phil. 90). nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege - that is there is no crime where there is no law punishing an act or omission as a crime. It tells us what is punishable and what is not punishable. common law crime - crimes by tradition in the Philippines. Tradition or custom itself cannot create a crime, but the law itself must provide and penalize an act as a crime.