AAA vs BBB

GR No. 212448 Jan. 11, 2018

FACTS:

AAA (Petitioner) and BBB (Respondent) were married in 2006 and their union
produced two children (CCC). In 2007, BBB moved to Singapore for work and was
able to acquire citizenship the next year. AAA claimed that BBB barely and
occasionally provided financial support. Other allegations included virtual
abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son CCC, and physical and sexual
violence. Furthermore, BBB had allegedly started having an affair and living with a
Singaporean woman named Lisel Mok.

The culmination of events happened when AAA went to Singapore with their
kids and had a violent altercation at a hotel room. BBB was then charged for causing
AAA mental and emotional anguish due to his alleged marital infidelity. A warrant of
arrest was issued against BBB together with a Hold-Departure Order that AAA was
able to secure as the former continued to evade arrest. Consequently, the case was
archived.

Later on, an Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the Accused With Omnibus
Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of
Arrest was filed on behalf of BBB. The motion to quash was granted on ground of
lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged as it happened outside of the
Philippines.

The denial of AAA’s motion for reconsideration prompted her to submit a

petition to the Supreme Court. In her petition, AAA mentioned that she experiences
mental and emotional anguish due to BBB’s actions wherever she goes and not only
in Singapore where BBB is allegedly having an affair. She also cited Section 7 on
Venue of R.A. 9262 and Section 4 on liberal construction of the law to promote the
protection and safety of victims of violence against women and their children.

ISSUE/S:

Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over an offense constituting psychological

violence under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9262, committed through marital infidelity,
when the alleged illicit relationship occurred or is occurring outside the country?

HELD/RESOLUTION:

The Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine Courts have jurisdiction over
Psychological Violence under R.A. 9262 despite the alleged extra marital affair, that
caused mental and emotional anguish to the offended wife, having happened
abroad. In this case, what was criminalized by and punished under R.A. 9262 was
the psychological violence causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife and not
the marital infidelity per se. The Supreme Court added that acts of violence against
women and their children may manifest transitory or continuing crimes, hence, a
person charged with a continuing or transitory crime may be validly tried in any
municipality or territory where the offense was in part committed.
 William Raegan vs Commissioner of Internal Revenue
G.R. No. L-26379 December 27, 1969
FACTS:

William Raegan, the petitioner, is a US citizen and an employee of Bendix

Radio — a company that provides technical assistance to the US Air Force and was
assigned at the Clark Air Base on or about July 7, 1959. After 9 months, he imported
a tax-free 1960 Cadillac car. On July 11, 1960, he requested for a permit to sell the
car from the Base Commander. The permit was granted provided that the sale was
made to: US Armed Forces member or US citizen employed in the U.S. military
bases in the Philippines. Raegan then sold it to Willie Johnson, Jr. (USMarine Corps)
and the latter sold it to Fred Meneses. After deducting the landed cost of the car and
the personal exemption which the petitioner was entitled, Commissioner of Internal
Revenue rendered him liable for income tax in the sum of P2,979.00.
After paying the sum imposed on him, Raegan wanted to have a refund from
respondent claiming that he was exempt, but while his request for refund was
pending, he filed the case with the Court of Tax Appeals seeking recovery of the sum
of P2,979.00 plus the legal rate of interest. However, the Court of Tax Appeals ruled
in favor of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the respondent collected the
income tax legally.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the income tax collected from Reagan was within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Philippines to tax?

HELD/RESOLUTION:

Foreigners are still subject to the Philippine authority. Its jurisdiction may be
diminished, but it does not disappear. However, it is with the bases under lease to
the American armed forces by virtue of the Military Bases Agreement of 1947–they
are not and cannot be foreign territory.

In addition, the Philippines is independent and sovereign; its authority may be

exercised over its entire domain. Within its limits, its decrees are supreme, its
commands paramount. Its laws govern therein, and everyone to whom it applies
must submit to its terms.

Furthermore, it is stated on Art. XII of the Military Bases Agreement: "a

national of the US serving in or employed in the Philippines in connection with the
construction, maintenance, operation or defense of the bases and residing in the
Philippines only by reason of such employment" is not to be taxed on his income
"unless derived from Philippine sources or sources other than the United States
sources"
 The People of the Philippine Islands vs. Lol-lo and Saraw
G.R. No. 17958 February 27, 1922
FACTS:

On or about June 30, 1920, two boats of Dutch possession left Matuta. On the
first boat was one Dutch subject and on the other are 11 men, women and children
who were also subjects of Holland. Upon arriving between the Islands of Buang and
Bukid in the Dutch East Indies at around 7 in the evening, the second boat was
surrounded by six vintas that carried twenty-four armed Moros.

At first, the Moros asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, they took all the
cargo, attacked some of the men and brutally violated the women. Afterwards, all the
people on the boat, except for 2 women, were placed back on the boar and holes
were also made on it with the intention submerging the boat. The Moros, which
included Lol-lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw finally arrived at
Maruro, a Dutch possession. At Maruro the two women were able to escape.

Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi,
where they were arrested and charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the
crime of piracy.

The counsel de officio for the Moros objected on grounds that the offense
charged was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, nor of any court
of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not constitute a public offense, under
the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. However, the demurrer was overruled, and
the two defendants were found by the trial court guilty and sentenced each of them
to life imprisonment.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Philippine Courts has jurisdiction over the crime?

HELD/RESOLUTION:

Yes. As mentioned in U.S. vs. Furlong [1820], the jurisdiction of piracy unlike
all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be punished by
all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile
limit of a foreign state, "for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to
crimes."
Pirates are in law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime not against any
particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal
of any country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried.