TERRITORIALITY

Territoriality means that the penal laws of the country have

force and effect only within its territory. It cannot penalize
crimes committed outside the same. This is subject to certain
exceptions brought about by international agreements and
practice. The territory of the country is not limited to the land
where its sovereignty resides but includes also its maritime and
interior waters as well as its atmosphere.
Terrestrial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over land.
Fluvial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over maritime
and interior waters.
Aerial jurisdiction is the jurisdiction exercised over the
atmosphere.
The Archipelagic Rule
All bodies of water comprising the maritime zone and interior
waters abounding different islands comprising the Philippine
Archipelagoare part of the Philippine territory regardless of
their breadth, depth, width or dimension. On the fluvial
jurisdiction there is presently a departure from the accepted
International Law Rule, because the Philippines adopted the
Archipelagic Rule. In the International Law Rule, when a strait
within a country has a width of more than 6 miles, the center
lane in excess of the 3 miles on both sides is considered
international waters.

NOTE:
A STRAIT is a narrow body of water that joins two larger
bodies of water.
 Page 2

QUESTION:
If a foreign merchant vessel is in the center lane and a crime
was committed there, under the International Law Rule, what
law will apply?
ANSWER:
The law of the country where that vessel is registered will
apply, because the crime is deemed to have been committed in
the high seas.

Under the Archipelagic Rule as declared in Article 1, of the

Constitution, all waters in the archipelago regardless of breadth
width, or dimension are part of our national territory. Under
this Rule, there is no more center lane, all these waters,
regardless of their dimension or width are part of Philippine
territory. So if a foreign merchant vessel is in the center lane of
the Philippine waters and a crime was committed, the crime
will be prosecuted before Philippine courts.

Three (3) international law theories on aerial jurisdiction

(1) The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to
the jurisdiction of the subjacent state, except for the
protection of its national security and public order. Under this
theory, if a crime is committed on board a foreign aircraft at
the atmosphere of a country, the law of that country does not
govern unless the crime affects the national security.

2) Relative Theory – The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction

over its atmosphere only to the extent that it can effectively
 Page 3

exercise control thereof. The Relative Theory Under this theory,

if a crime was committed on an aircraft which is already
beyond the control of the subjacent state, the criminal law of
that state will not govern anymore. But if the crime is
committed in an aircraft within the atmosphere over a
subjacent state which exercises control, then its criminal law
will govern.

(3) Absolute Theory – The subjacent state has complete

jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject only to
innocent passage by aircraft of foreign country. Under this
theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how
high, as long as it can establish that it is within the Philippine
atmosphere, Philippine criminal law will govern. This is the
theory adopted by the Philippines.

BASIC MAXIMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Doctrine of Pro Reo
Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law
admits of two interpretations – one lenient to the offender and
one strict to the offender – that interpretation which is lenient
or favorable to the offender will be adopted. This is in
consonance with the fundamental rule that all doubts shall be
construed in favor of the accused and consistent with
presumption of innocence of the accused under our
Constitution which is the fundamental/supreme law of the
land. This is peculiar only to criminal law.
 Page 4

QUESTION:
One boy was accused of parricide and was found guilty. This is
punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Assuming you were
the judge, would you give the accused the benefit of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLAW)? The ISLAW does not
apply when the penalty imposed is life imprisonment or death.
Would you consider the penalty imposable or the penalty
imposed, taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance
of minority?
ANSWER:
If you will answer "no", then you go against the Doctrine of Pro
Reo because you can interpret the ISLAW in a more lenient
manner. Taking into account the doctrine, we interpret the
ISLAW to mean that the penalty imposable and not the penalty
prescribed by law, since it is more favorable for the accused to
interpret the law.

2. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege

There is no crime when there is no law punishing the same. This
is true to civil law countries, but not to common law countries.
Because of this maxim, there is no common law crime in the
Philippines. No matter how wrongful, evil or bad the act is, if
there is no law defining the act, the same is not considered a
crime. Common law crimes are wrongful acts which the
community/society condemns as contemptible, even though
there is no law declaring the act criminal. Not any law punishing
an act or omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the law
punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null and void.
 Page 5

3. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

The act cannot be criminal where the mind isnot criminal. This
is true to a felony characterized by dolo, but not a felony
resulting from culpa. This maxim is not an absolute onebecause
it is not applied to culpable felonies, or those that result from
negligence.

4. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA

Violations of the Revised Penal Code are referred to as mala in
se, which literally means, that the acts are inherently evil or
bad or per se wrongful.

On the other hand, violations of Special Laws are generally

referred to as mala prohibita. Note, however, that not all
violations of special laws are mala prohibita. While intentional
felonies are always mala in se, it does not follow that
prohibited acts done in violation of special laws are always mala
prohibita. Even if the crime is punished under a special law, if
the act punished is one which is inherently wrong, the same is
malum in se, and, therefore, goodfaith and the lack of criminal
intent is a valid defense; unless it is the product of criminal
negligence or culpa. Likewise when the special laws requires
that the punished act be committed knowingly and willfully,
criminal intent is required to be proved before criminal liability
may arise. When the act penalized is not inherently wrong, it is
wrong only because a law punishes the same.

For example, Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes piracy in

Philippine waters and the special law punishing brigandage in
the highways. These acts are inherently wrong and although
they are punished under special law, the acts themselves are
 Page 6

mala in se; thus, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a

defense.

Distinction between crimes punished under the Revised Penal

Code and crimes punished under Special Laws

1. As to moral trait of the offender

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the moral

trait of the offender is considered. This is why liability would
only arise when there is dolo or culpa in the commission of the
punishable act. In crimes punished under special laws, the
moral trait of the offender is not considered; it is enough that
the prohibited act was voluntarily done.

2. As to use of good faith as defense

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, good faith or

lack of criminal intent is a valid defense; unless the crime is the
result of culpa.

In crimes punished under Special Laws, good faith is not a

defense

3. As to degree of accomplishment of the crime

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the degree

of accomplishment of the crime is taken into account in
punishing the offender; thus, there are attempted, frustrated,
and consummated stages in the commission of the crime.
 Page 7

In crimes punished under Special Laws, the act gives rise to a

crime only when it is consummated; there are NO attempted
or frustrated stages, unless the special law expressly penalize
the mere attempt or frustration of the crime.

4. As to mitigating and aggravating circumstances

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, mitigating

and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in
imposing the penalty since the moral trait of the offender is
considered.

In crimes punished under Special Laws, mitigating and

aggravating circumstances are NOT taken into account in
imposing the penalty.

5. As to degree of participation

In crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, when there

is more than one offender, the degree of participation of each
in the commission of the crime is taken into account in
imposing the penalty; thus, offenders are classified as principal,
accomplice and accessory.

In crimes punished under Special Laws, the degree of

participation of the offenders is NOT considered. All who
perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same
extent. There is NO principal or accomplice or accessory to
consider.
 Page 8

Questions & Answers

1. Three hijackers accosted the pilot of an airplane. They

compelled the pilot to change destination, but before the
same could be accomplished, the military was alerted. What
was the crime committed?

Grave coercion. There is no such thing as attempted hijacking.

Under special laws, the penalty is not imposed unless the act
isconsummated. Crimes committed against the provisions of a
special law are penalized only when the pernicious effects,
which such law seeks to prevent, arise.

2. A mayor awarded a concession to his daughter. She was

also the highest bidder. The award was even endorsed by the
municipal council as the most advantageous to the
municipality. The losing bidder challenged the validity of the
contract, but the trial court sustained its validity. The case
goes to the Sandiganbayan and the mayor gets convicted for
violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graftand Corrupt
Practices Act). He appeals alleging his defenses raised in the
Sandiganbayan that he did not profit from the transaction,
that the contract was advantageous to the municipality, and
that he did not act with intent to gain. Rule.

Judgment affirmed. The contention of the mayor that he did

not profit anything fromthe transaction, that the contract
wasadvantageous to the municipality, and that hedid not act
with intent to gain, is not a defense.The crime involved is
malum prohibitum.

In the case of People v. Sunico, an election registrar was

 Page 9

prosecuted for having failed to include in the voter’s register

the name of a certain voter. There is a provision in the election
law which proscribes any person from preventing or
disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote. In trial, the
election registrar raised as good faith as a defense. The trial
court convicted him saying that good faith is not a defense in
violation of special laws. On appeal, it was held by the Supreme
Court that disenfranchising a voter from casting his vote is not
wrong because there is a provision of law declaring it as a
crime, but because with or without a law, that act is wrong. In
other words, it is malum in se. Consequently, good faith is a
defense. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the accused
acted with malice, he was acquitted.

Test to determine if violation of special law is malum

prohibitum or malum in se.

Analyze the violation: Is it wrong because there is a law

prohibiting it or punishing it as such? If you remove the law, will
the act still be wrong? If the wording of the law punishing the
crime uses the word “willfully”, then malice must be proven.
Where malice is a factor, good faith is a defense. In violation of
special law, the act constituting the crime is a prohibited act.
Therefore culpa is not a basis of liability, unless the special law
punishes an omission. When given a problem, take note if the
crime is a violation of the Revised Penal Code or a special law.