Cubile, Jhared Christian D.

CLAW3

BSC 2-4 Att. Reyes

ACTIVITY NO. 1

1. What is the definition of criminal law?

Are those acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties for their
violations.

2. What are the differences between criminal law and criminal procedure?

Criminal Law refers to the body of laws that define offenses and specify punishments for those
offenses while Criminal Procedure sets the rules and regulations governing criminal proceedings,
from investigation to final sentencing and identifying criminal liability.

3. What are the distinctions among crime, felony, and offense?

Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it

Felony Violation of the Revised Penal Code Act No. 3815

Offense Violation of the Special Penal Laws enacted by the legislatures

4. What are the sources of criminal law?

The Revised Penal Code, Special Penal Law, and Presidential Decrees

5. What are the three characteristics of criminal law?

General Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in the Philippine territory

Territorial provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone.

Prospective Criminal law can only punish an act committed after it's effectivity

6. Relate the provision indicated in Article 14 of the New Civil Code to the principle of

generality.

Article 14 of New Civil Code is about public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live
or sojourn in the Philippine territory, which is the emphasis in “generality” characteristic of the
Criminal Law

7. Relate Sections 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 75 to the principle of generality.

As stated on Sections 4 and 5 of Republic Act No. 75 embody the principle of generality by
establishing universal standards and consequences that apply to all individuals

8. How was the doctrine of immunity from suit applied in the case of Shauf v. Court of Appeals (G.R.
No. 90314, November 27, 1990)?

Private respondents, filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that as officers of the United States
Armed Forces in accordance with the powers vested in them under the Philippine-American Military
Bases Agreement, they are immune from suit. The Court emphasized that the defendants' claim of
acting in their official capacity does not relieve them of accountability for violating Shauf's rights.
9. How was the doctrine of immunity from suit applied in the case of Schneckenburger v. Moran (G.R.
No. L-44896, July 31, 1936)?

The decision emphasized that government officials could not be held liable for acts performed in
their official capacity, unless there was a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or actions taken
beyond their authority.

10. What is the extent of applicability of Philippine penal laws insofar as territory is concerned?

the provisions of the RPC (Dec 8, 1930) shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction,
against an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship, forge or counterfeit any coin or currency
note of the Philippines, and whose commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations

11. What is the implication of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code to the principle of territoriality?

The implication of RPC Article no. 2 to principle of territoriality states that the Code applies to crimes
committed within Philippine territory, including its airspace and territorial waters.

12. How was the principle of territoriality applied in the case of US v. Fowler (G.R. No. L496,
December 31, 1902)?

The case of G.R. No. L496, The Philippine courts has no jurisdiction over the crime committed on
high seas on board a vessel not registered in the Philippines occurred on the high seas, outside its
territorial limits.

13. How was the principle of territoriality applied in the case of US v. Bull (G.R. No. 5270 January 15,
1910)?

The Territoriality Principle was applied to determine the validity of Act No. 55, must then ascertain
whether the Legislature has been expressly or implication forbidden to enact it.

14. What is an ex post facto law?

A law is said to be ex post facto when it penalizes as a public offense an act which was not at the
time of its commission

15. What is a bill of attainder?

a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. Establishes the guilt of an individual/s
for a particular offense and specifies the punishment.
 Cubile, Jhared Christian D. CLAW3
BSC 2-4 Att. Reyes

CASE BRIEF

G.R. No. 90314 November 27, 1990

LOIDA Q. SHAUF and JACOB SHAUF, Petitioners,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS, DON E. DETWILER and ANTHONY PERSI, Respondents

Facts: Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American

who is a member of the United States Air Force filed an equal employment
opportunity complaint against private respondents after being passed over for the
position of Guidance Counselor. She claimed that the private respondents had
discriminated against her due to her sex and nationality.

Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf filed a complaint for damages, dated April 27,
1978, against private respondents Don Detwiler and Anthony Persi before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch LVI at Angeles City, docketed as Civil Case No. 2783, for
the alleged discriminatory acts of herein private respondents in maliciously denying
her application for the position.

Private respondents, as defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground

that as officers of the United States Armed Forces in accordance with the powers
vested in them under the Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement, they are
immune from suit.

Issues:  Whether Mr. Isakson is qualified for the position of Guidance Counsilor or
the actions of the U.S. military officials constituted discrimination against
Loida Q. Shauf.
 Whether or not the doctrine of state immunity applies to military officials
within their official capacities in discrimination cases.

The Supreme Court Decision holding that private respondents Persi and
Rulling:
Detwiler, in committing the acts complained of have, in effect, violated the basic
constitutional right of petitioner Loida Q. Shauf. For this, they should be held
accountable for the act of discrimination against Shauf, violating her constitutional
rights.

The doctrine of state immunity does not shield officials from suits for acts
performed beyond their official capacities or in violation of individual rights. Private
respondents are hereby ordered, jointly and severally, to pay petitioners the sum of
P100,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as and for attorney’s fees, and the costs
of suit.
G.R. No. L-44896 July 31, 1936

RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER, petitioner,

vs.

MANUEL V. MORAN, Judge of First Instance of Manila, respondent.

Facts: On June 11, 1934, the petitioner Schneckenburger was recognized as

Uruguay's honorary consul in Manila, Philippines. He was then accused in Manila's
Court of First Instance for falsifying a private document. He challenged the court's
jurisdiction, arguing that under both the United States and Philippine constitutions,
the court below lacked jurisdiction to try him. He filed this petition for a writ of
prohibition to prevent the CFI from taking cognizance of the criminal case brought
against him.

This case involves no question of diplomatic immunity. It is well settled that

a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an ambassador or
minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is
accredited. A consul is not exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the
laws of the country where he resides.

Issues:
 Whether the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme
Court of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution was exclusive.
 Whether the original jurisdiction thus conferred upon this court by the
Constitution over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and
consuls, is exclusive.

The Constitution states that the original jurisdiction of this court “shall
Rulling:
include all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls.” In
considering the current case this court cannot go beyond this constitutional
mandate. the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction to try the petitioner,
and that the petition for a writ of prohibition must be denied.
G.R. No. L-496 December 31, 1902

THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellant,

vs.

WILLIAM FOWLER, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

Facts:

The two defendants are charged with stealing sixteen bottles of champagne
worth $20 on August 12, 1901, while aboard the transport Lawton, which was sailing
the high seas. These bottles were part of the vessel's cargo and belonged to Julian
Lindsay.

in article 1 adds to article 56, consisting of seven paragraphs, another

paragraph numbered 8, which reads as follows: "Of all crimes and offenses
committed on the high seas or beyond the jurisdiction of any country, or within any
of the navigable waters of the Philippine Archipelago, on board a ship or water craft
of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands in accordance with the
laws thereof."
Issues:

 Whether or not Court of First Instance over the theft of champagne from the
transport vessel Lawton outside its territorial limits.
 Whether or not Defendants may be held liable for theft on the high seas

Rulling:

No, the transport Lawton not being a vessel of this class , our courts are without
jurisdiction to take cognizance of a crime committed on board the same. Upon these
grounds, it is considered that the order appealed should be affirmed.
G.R. No. L-5270 January 15, 1910

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

H. N. BULL, defendant-appellant.

Facts:

 H. N. Bull was the captain of the Steamship Standard, which was

engaged in transporting cattle, carabaos, and other animals from a foreign
port to Manila, Philippine Islands. On or around December 2, 1908, Bull, as
the captain of the vessel, willfully and unlawfully brought cattles and
carabaos into the port of Manila from Ampieng, Formosa, without ensuring
appropriate measures to secure the animals during transport.
 Stated on Act No. 55 section 1 that, the owners or masters of steam,
sailing, or other vessels, carrying or transporting cattle, sheep, swine, or
other animals, from one port in the Philippine Islands to another, or from
any foreign port to any port within the Philippine Islands shall cause such
animals to be provided with adequate forage and fresh water at least once
in every twenty-four hours. Section 3, owner or master of a vessel, or
custodian of such animals, who knowingly and willfully fails to comply with
the provisions of section one, shall, for every such failure, be liable to pay a
penalty of not less that one hundred dollars nor more that five hundred
dollars, United States money, for each offense.

Issues:

Whether the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a

foreign ship when the neglect and omission which constitutes the offense
continued during the time the ship was within the territorial waters of the
United States

Rulling:

Assuming that the act began at the departure port in Formosa and
continued through, all necessary elements of the offense were present
during the voyage through the territorial waters. Since the completed
unlawful act took place within American waters, the court had jurisdiction
over both the matter of the offense and the offender. According to the
circumstances, determined this point against the appellant, particularly in
view of the fact that the objection was not made in the court below, and
that the evidence clearly shows a failure to provide suitable means for the
protection of the animals. The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to
pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, and to pay the costs. The sentence and judgment is
affirmed.