Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24




 1. The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Court (ICC) with
"the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes
(including genocide) of international concern x x x and shall be
complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions." The RP is already a
signatory but pending ratification by Senate.

 2. The RP entered into a Non-Surrender Agreement with the US which

provides that before a “person” (current or former Government official,
employee, or military personnel or national of one party) is surrendered or
transferred to any international tribunal, express consent of the other party is
 3. Petitioner assails the validity of the Agreement because it, among
other things, (1) contravenes the Rome Statute; and (2) amends and is
repugnant to Sec. 17 of RA 9851 ("Philippine Act on Crimes Against
International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against
ISSUE: W/n the Agreement is valid.

 Art. 1 of the Rome Statute pertinently provides that the ICC x x x shall have the
power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of
international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be
complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and
functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.
Under par. 3 of Art. 20, Rome Statute, which again underscores the primacy of
the jurisdiction of a state vis-a- vis that of the ICC. As far as relevant, the
provision states that "no person who has been tried by another court for
conduct x x x [constituting crimes within its jurisdiction] shall be tried by the
[International Criminal] Court with respect to the same conduct x x x."
 The foregoing provisions of the Rome Statute, taken collectively, show that
the Rome Statute expressly recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states,
like the RP, over serious crimes committed within their respective borders,
the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC coming into play only when the
signatory states are unwilling or unable to prosecute.
 Given the above consideration, petitioner's suggestion--that the RP, by
entering into the Agreement, violated its duty required by the imperatives of
good faith and breached its commitment under the Vienna
 Convention to refrain from performing any act tending to

 impair the value of a treaty, e.g., the Rome Statute--has to be rejected
outright. For nothing in the provisions of the Agreement, in relation to the
Rome Statute, tends to diminish the efficacy of the Statute, let alone defeats
the purpose of the ICC. Lest it be overlooked, the Rome Statute contains a
proviso that enjoins the ICC from seeking the surrender of an erring person,
should the process require the requested state to perform an act that would
violate some international agreement it has entered into. We refer to Art. 98(2)
of the Rome Statute, which reads:
 “2. The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which
would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations
under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a
sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court,
unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for
the giving of consent for the surrender.”
 - The Agreement merely reinforces the primacy of the national jurisdiction
of the US and the Philippines in prosecuting criminal offenses committed
by their respective citizens and military personnel, among others. The
jurisdiction of the ICC pursuant to the Rome Statute over high crimes
indicated thereat is clearly and unmistakably complementary to the
national criminal jurisdiction of the signatory states.
 - RA 9851 clearly: (1) defines and establishes the crimes against
international humanitarian law, genocide and other crimes against
humanity; (2) provides penal sanctions and criminal liability for their
commission; and (3) establishes special courts for the prosecution of these
crimes and for the State to exercise primary criminal jurisdiction. Nowhere
in RA 9851 is there a proviso that goes against the tenor of the Agreement.
 Facts: B.P. Blg. 33 penalizes illegal trading, hoarding, overpricing,
adulteration, underdelivery, and underfilling of petroleum products, as
well as possession for trade of adulterated petroleum products and of
underfilled LPG cylinders. The law set the monetary penalty for violators to
a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of P50,000.
 To implement the law the DOE issued Circular No. 2000-06-010.
Respondent LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc. (LPG Refillers)
asked the DOE to set aside the Circular for being contrary to law. DOE
denied the request.
 LPG Refillers then filed a petition for prohibition and annulment of the
Circular with the RTC. RTC nullified the Circular on the ground that it
introduced new offenses not included in the law (per RTC: the Circular, in
providing penalties on a per cylinder basis for each violation, might
exceed the maximum penalty under the law).
 DOE argued: penalties for the acts and omissions enumerated in the
Circular are sanctioned by
 B.P. Blg. 33 and R.A. No. 8479. LPG Refillers countered: enabling laws do
not expressly penalize the acts and omissions enumerated in the
 Neither is the

 Circular supported by R.A. No. 7638 since the said law does not pertain to
LPG traders.
 RTC denied MR. Hence this petition for review on certiorari to SC.
Issue: W/N the DOE Circular is void on the ground that it introduced
new offences not punished under
B.P. Blg. 33?

 Held & Ratio: DOE Circular is valid.

 For an administrative regulation to have the force of penal law (1) the
violation of the administrative regulation must be made a crime by the
delegating statute itself; and (2) the penalty for such violation must be
provided by the statute itself.
 The Circular satisfies the first requirement. B.P. Blg. 33, criminalizes illegal
trading, adulteration, underfilling, hoarding, and overpricing of petroleum
products. Under this general description of what constitutes criminal acts
involving petroleum products, the Circular merely lists the various modes
by which the said criminal acts may be perpetrated, namely: no price
display board, no weighing scale, no tare weight or incorrect tare weight
markings, no authorized LPG seal, no trade name, unbranded LPG
cylinders, no serial number, no distinguishing color, no embossed
identifying markings on cylinder, underfilling LPG cylinders, tampering LPG
cylinders, and unauthorized decanting of LPG cylinders. These specific
acts and omissions are obviously within the contemplation of the law,
which seeks to curb the pernicious practices of some petroleum
 As for the second requirement: B.P. Blg. 33, provides that the monetary
penalty for any person who commits any of the acts aforestated is limited
to a minimum of P20,000 and a maximum of P50,000. Under the Circular,
the maximum pecuniary penalty for retail outlets is P20,000, an amount
within the range allowed by law. However, the Circular is silent as to
any maximum penalty for the refillers, marketers, and dealers. This
mere silence, does not amount to violation of the statutory maximum limit.
The mere fact that the Circular provides penalties on a per cylinder basis
does not in itself run counter to the law since all that B.P. Blg. 33 prescribes
are the minimum and the maximum limits of penalties.
 It is B.P. Blg. 33, which defines what constitute punishable acts involving
petroleum products and which set the minimum and maximum limits for the
corresponding penalties. The Circular merely implements the said law, albeit it
is silent on the maximum pecuniary penalty for refillers, marketers, and dealers.
 Noteworthy, the enabling laws on which the Circular is based were specifically
intended to provide the
 DOE with increased administrative and penal measures

 with which to effectively curtail rampant adulteration and shortselling, as well
as other acts involving petroleum products, which are inimical to public
interest. To nullify the Circular would be to render inutile government efforts to
protect the general consuming public against the nefarious practices of some
unscrupulous LPG traders.
 Note: LPG Refillers filed an MR with the SC on Aug. 28, 2007 (G.R. NO.
159149) contending that the Circular, in providing penalties on a per
cylinder basis, is no longer regulatory, but already confiscatory in nature.
MR denied. Circular is not confiscatory. The penalties do not exceed the
ceiling prescribed in B.P. Blg. 33, which penalizes “any person who
commits any act [t]herein prohibited.” Violation on a per cylinder basis
falls within the phrase “any act.” To provide the same penalty for one
who violates a prohibited act in B.P. Blg. 33, regardless of the number of
cylinders involved would result in an indiscriminate, oppressive and
impractical operation of B.P. Blg. 33. The equal protection clause
demands that “all persons subject to such legislation shall be treated
alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges
conferred and in the liabilities imposed.”

 Doctrine: Positivist Theory of Criminal Law

 Facts: Norma de Joya was charged with two counts of BP 22 or the bouncing checks law
in a Batangas MTC.
 Crim Case 25484 was for issuing a Solid Bank check to Flor catapang de Tenorio worth
150,000 which was dishonoured because the account was closed.
 Crim Case 25773 was for issuing a Scurity Bank and Trust Company check to Resurreccion
Castillo for 225,000 which was also dishonoured because the account was closed.
 De Joya pleaded not guilty and then jumped bail during trial. She was unable to present
evidence and she lost both cases. Both decisions were promulgated without her being
there despite due notice. Aside from being ordered to pay the amounts, she was also
given the penalty of one year imprisonment.
 In the meantime SC Admin Circular 12-2000 was passed concerning
punishments for BP 22 violations. Two years later, de Joya was
apprehended while applying for an NBI clearance. She was jailed in
Batangas and then she asked to be released by virtue of the circular. She
thought that it could be applied retroactively and that it meant
imprisonment was no longer a punishment for bp 22 violations.
 The RTC denied her motion hence this habeas corpus petition.
 Issues:
 1. Should the Writ for Habeas Corpus be granted?
 2. Is the SC Admin. Circular 12-2000 a penal law? What does it really
 3. What is the positivist theory of criminal law?

 Held: 1. No!
 2. No!
 3. See Doctrine
 Doctrine:
 1. Section 4, Rule 102 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides that
the writ of habeas corpus is not allowed if the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued
by a court or judge or by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of
record. In this case De Joya was imprisoned by virtue of a court judgment.
 2. SC Admin. Circular No. 12-2000 is not a penal law; hence, Article 22
of the RPC is not applicable. The circular applies only to those cases
pending as of the date of its effectivity and not to cases already
terminated by final judgment. Also, it did not abolish imprisonment. It
merely lays down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties
for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. It says that when imposing a fine would better
serve the interest of justice, the guilty party may just be fined instead of
being imprisoned.
 3. In imposing penalties for crimes, the courts must bear in mind that
Philippine penal law is based on the Spanish penal code and has
adopted features of the positivist theory of criminal law. 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
adoption of the aspects of the theory is exemplified by the indeterminate
sentence law.
 Philippine penal law looks at the convict as a member of society. Among the
important factors to be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed
on him are (1) his relationship towards his dependents, family and their
relationship with him; and (2) his relationship towards society at large and the
State. The State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting
the social organization against the criminal acts of destructive individuals but
also in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social
 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.