Generality Principle versus Nationality Principle

One of the characteristics of our penal laws is Generality (the two others are
Territoriality and Prospectivity). Although the Revised Penal Code does not contain
a provision on this, this principle simply means that penal laws are binding on all
persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory. Meaning, all persons -
citizens and aliens - are covered by our penal laws. This is subject to several
exceptions. Ironically, this principle is pursuant to Article 14 of the New Civil
Code which states that “penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippines territory subject to the
principles of international law and treaty stipulations.” On the other hand, the
Nationality Principle is found in the same Civil Code, specifically Article 15
thereof which states that “(l)aws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad.“

Now, can Nationality Principle be applied in criminal cases? May an alien, who
committed a crime in the Philippines invoke Nationality Principle in order to evade
criminal liability?

Let us consider these facts: Let us assume that Mercedes, a 25-year old Bicolana
lass, had long wanted to have a foreigner as her future husband. Her ambition drove
her to the internet dating site “Date My Age.” After surfing for several hours, she
met Andy, a flamboyant 58-year old widower from the Netherland who had developed an
instant crush on her. Since their feeling was “mutual”, they became lovers. Andy
decided to propose marriage which was readily accepted by Mercedes. When he came to
the Philippines, he married Mercedes in a civil rite officiated by the City Mayor
of Iriga. A year after the marriage, Mercedes gave birth to their child, Ferdinand.
After three years, their relationship turned sour due to incompatibility issue.
Andy was an easygoing man who always preferred to be with his peers leaving
Mercedes alone at their conjugal abode. Their constant marital spats led Andy to
file and obtain a degree of divorce from his home country. Mercedes was left alone
taking care of their child. A year later, she discovered that Andy had returned to
the country and contracted another marriage with a woman from Naga City. This
angered Mercedes. She filed a criminal complaint for violation of RA 9262 (Violence
against women and their children) before the Prosecutor’s Office of Iriga citing
economic abuse for his failure to provide financial and material support to their
child. Andy countered that his obligation to support the child was no longer
warranted since, under his national law (of Netherlands), his obligation ceased
when the divorce decree was issued. Is he correct? Is he subject to our laws
specifically RA 9262? Will his national law be considered?

Andy is liable for economic abuse under RA 9262. Under the aforesaid special law,
the deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is considered an act of
violence against women and children. Considering that Andy was in the Philippines
when he committed the act, he was criminally liable since Generality principle* in
relation to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, which applies to the instant case,
provides that: "[p]enal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the
principle of public international law and to treaty stipulations." On this score,
it is indisputable that the continuing acts of Andy in refusing to support his
child with Mercedes is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties
herein are residents of Bicol.

What about Nationality Principle? Is it applicable here? The Court held that his
national law should not be applied. Said the court “foreign law should not be
applied when its application would work undeniable injustice to the citizens or
residents of the forum. To give justice is the most important function of law;
hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is obviously unjust negates the
fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. x x x “(E)ven if the laws of the
Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to support his child nor penalize
the noncompliance therewith, such obligation is still duly enforceable in the
Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of
financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.”

Lesson: Choose someone who has similar passions in life to your own. A relationship
is for making memories together. (Polly Ryan)

Reference: Criminal Law Concepts and Jurisprudence, Nojara, 2020 edition, Central
Bookstore. Cases cited: Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, Dec. 10, 2014
citing Bank of America, NT and SA v. American Realty Corporation, 378 Phil. 1279,
1296 (1999).
*The decision mentioned Territoriality principle.
P4-S20

(The names of characters and places used herein are the product of author's
imagination. Any resemblance to any actual person, living or dead, is purely
coincidental.)