CRIMINAL LAW 1 ATTY. RYAN HARTZELL C.

BALISACAN (ORGANIZED BASED ON

THE SYLLABUS OUTLINE)
I.

FOUNDATION OF CRIMINAL LAW

a. Definition (Reyes, p-1.)
Criminal Law is that branch or division of law which defines crimes,
treats of their nature, and provides for their punishment.
b. Philosophy (Reyes, pp. 23-24.)
Two theories in Criminal Law.
There are two important theories in criminal law: (1) the classical
theory, and (2) the positivist theory.
Characteristic of the classical theory.
1. The basis of criminal liability is human free will and the purpose of
the penalty is retribution.
2. That man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will
to choose between good and evil, thereby placing more stress upon
the effect or result of the felonious act than upon the man, the
criminal himself.
3. It has endeavoured to establish a mechanical and direct proportion
between crime and penalty.
4. There is a scant regard to the human element. (basic Principles,
Rationale, p.2, by the Code Commission on Code of Crimes)
Characteristics of the positivist theory.
1. That man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid
phenomenon which constrains him to do wrong, in spite or contrary
to his volition.
2. That crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as
such, it cannot be treated and checked by the application of
abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of
a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through the
enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a
thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a
competent body of psychiatrist and social scientists. (Basic
Principles, Rationale, pp.2 and 3, by the Code Commission on Code
of Crimes)
c. Principles
i.
Generality (Reyes, pp. 6-13)
Characteristics of criminal law
Criminal law has three main characteristics: (1) general (2)
territorial (3) prospective.
I.

GENERAL, in that criminal law is binding on all person who live

or sojourn in the Philippine territory. (Art.14, new Civil Code)

In a case where the accused contended that being American

citizen, he cannot be prosecuted ofr, much less convicter of, the
crime of illegal possession of firearms, because it is a
constitutional right of the citizens of the united states of
America to keep and bear arms without any need of applying
and securing a government license therefor, the Court of
Appeals held:
The Philippines is a sovereign state with the obligation
and the right of every government to uphold its laws and
maintain order within its domain , and with the general
jurisdiction to punish persons for offenses committed within its
territory, regardless of the nationality of the offender. (Salonga
and Yap, Public International Law, p.169) No foreigner enjoys in
this country extra-territorial right to be exempted from its laws
and jurisdiction, with the exception of heads of states and
diplomatic representatives who, by virtue of the customary law
of nations, are not subject to the Philippine territorial
jurisdiction. (People vs. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G.1027)
As a general rule, the jurisdiction of the civil courts is not affected by
the military character of the accused
U.S. vs Sweet
(1 Phil.18)
Facts: Sweet was an employee of the U.S.Army in the
Philippines. He assaulted a prisoner of war for which he was
charged with crime of physical injuries. Sweet interposed the
defense that the fact that he was an employee of the U.S.
military authorities deprived the court of jurisdiction to try and
punish him
Held: the case is open to the application of the general
principle that jurisdiction of the civil tribunals is unaffected by
the military or other special character of the person brought
before them for trial, unless controlled by express legislation to
the contrary.
Civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction with general courts-martial
over soldiers of the Armed forces of the Philippines.
Civl courts have jurisdiction with over murder cases committed
by persons subject to military law. The civil ourts have concurrent
jurisdiction with the military courts or general courts-martial over
soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Civil courts have jurisdiction over the offense of malversation
(Art.217) committed by an army finance officer. (People vs. Livara, G.R.
L-6021, April 20, 1954)

Even in times of war, the civil courts have concurrent jurisdiction

with the military courts or general courts-martial over soldiers of the
Philippine Army, provided that in the place of the commission of the
crime no hostilities are in progress and civil courts are functioning.
(Valdez vs. Lucero, 76 Phil.356)
The Revised Penal Code or other penal law is not applicable when the
military court takes cognizance of the case.
When the military court takes cognizance of the case involving a
person subject to military law, the Articles of War apply, not the
Revised Penal Code or other Penal law.
By their acceptance of appointments as officers in the Bolo
Area from the General Headquarters of the 6 th Military District, the
accused, who were civilians at the outbreak of the war , became
members of the Philippine Army amenable to the Articles of War
(Ruffy, et al. vs. Chief of Staff, et all., 75 Phil.875)
Jurisdiction of military courts.
Section 1 of Rep. Act. No.7055 reads in full: