PEOPLE V GALACGAC

Facts:
Enrique Galacgac was made to answer for the Criminal Case 19292, serious physical injuries;
Criminal Case 19295, attempted homicide and Criminal Case 19296, illegal possession of
firearms. He is a naturalized American Citizen and an employee of the U.S Navy. Crimes
occurred in Manila, Philippines in the year 1951 (RPC is already effective).
Galacgac’s Contention: he claimed that being an American Citizen he couldn’t be prosecuted
and likewise convicted of illegal possession of firearm since in the United States it is a
constitutional right “to keep and bear arms.”
Issue: can Galacgac be prosecuted in our courts and be penalized under the Revised Penal Code
even if he is an American Citizen? Does the Revised Penal Court cover naturalized American
citizens?
Held:
With regard to the illegal possession of firearms, based on sec.892 of the Revised
Administrative Code, ordains that any person, whether a national or foreigner, coming to the
Philippines and bringing with him any firearm, must deposit the same with the Collector of
Customs who in turn must deliver it to the Phil Constabulary, from which the firearm cannot be
taken until the importer shall have secured a license to possess it.
ART 14 Civil Code: Criminal Law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine
territory. SUBJECT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
TREATY STIPULATIONS
The Philippines is a sovereign state with the obligation to uphold its laws and maintain order
within its domain, it has the general jurisdiction to pusnish persons for offenses committed
within its territory, regardless of the nationality of the offender. (Public International Law)
ART 2 RPC: ... provisions of this code shall be enforced within the Philippine Archipelago
“except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application.”
only people exempted from Generality Principle as provided in the treaties and laws of
preferential application are: Ambassadors or Public Ministers of foreign countries and their
respective domestic servants (Pursuant to R.A No. 75)
The SC held that a mere civilian of the U.S. Navy is not entitled to any extra –territorial privilege