1.

Jurisdiction
Under the territoriality principle of Criminal Law, as provided in Article 2 of the RPC, the
provisions of the code apply only to offenses committed within the territorial jurisdiction of
the country. However, under Criminal Procedure, before a court exercises criminal
jurisdiction there are three requisites that should be present: (1) Jurisdiction over the subject
matter; (2) Jurisdiction over the accused, and; (3) Jurisdiction over Territory. Criminal
complaint may still be filed in accordance with Rule 110 of the Rules of Court but the case
may not proceed if the Court requires that they should have jurisdiction over the person of
the accused.

Under International Law, a State has a passive personality, meaning, its jurisdiction is based
on the nationality of the victim. This principle has not been ordinarily accepted for
ordinary crimes and torts, but is increasingly accepted for crime of terrorism & other
organized attacks on a State’s nationals by reason of their nationality.

2. EXTRADITION
Under Public International Law, extradition in the Philippines may come into effect when the
Philippine government and a foreign government sign an agreement through a treaty to be
ratified by both parties. However, each extradition treaty has its own rules as to how the
extradition is to be proceeded.
Principle of Double Criminality
This principle states that in order that extradition is granted or honored, the crime for which
extradition is requested must be a crime in both the requesting state and the state to which
the fugitive has fled.

According to the DOJ Official Website, the following are the countries which have extradition
treaty with the Philippines:
1. Australia
2. Canada
3. China
4. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
5. India
6. Indonesia
7. Korea
 8. Micronesia
9. Russia
10. Spain
11. Switzerland
12. Thailand
13. UK
14. US

3. Request for Interpol’s assistance by using Red Notice.

A Red Notice is a request to law enforcement worldwide to locate and provisionally arrest a
person pending extradition, surrender, or similar legal action. A Red Notice is not an
international arrest warrant.
The individuals are wanted by the requesting member country, or international tribunal.
Member countries apply their own laws in deciding whether to arrest a person. The majority
of Red Notices are restricted to law enforcement use only.
Extracts of Red Notices are published at the request of the member country concerned and
where the public’s help may be needed to locate an individual or if the individual may pose a
threat to public safety.
Who are the subjects of Red Notices?
Red Notices are issued for fugitives wanted either for prosecution or to serve a sentence in
relation to serious ordinary law crimes such as murder, rape and fraud. This follows criminal
proceedings in the country issuing the request. This is not always the home country of the
individual.
When a person is sought for prosecution, it means the person has not been convicted and
should be considered innocent until proven guilty. A person sought to serve a sentence
means that this person has been found guilty by a court in the country that requested the
publication of the Red Notice.

4. Warrant of Arrest
Section 4. Execution of warrant. — The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest was delivered
for execution shall cause the warrant to be executed within ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten
(10) days after the expiration of the period, the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make
a report to the judge who issued the warrant. In case of his failure to execute the warrant, he shall state
the reasons therefor.
After the expiration of 10 days, the Court shall issue an alias warrant if the original warrant of
arrest is returned by the peace officer together with the report. Alias warrants are reissued
warrants to give law enforcers another chance to apprehend accused persons who were not
caught under the original warrant.

5. Watch List Order

A Watch List Order (WLO) prohibits people from leaving the Philippines without first getting
clearance from the Department of Justice. Like the HDO, a WLO is issued by the RTC. The
information contained in the WLO is the same as that of the HDO.

4. ALERT LIST ORDER

Any person whose name is in the Alert List shall be denied departure and proceeded as
follows:
a. If the person is a subject of a warrant of arrest issued to him/her by a Court, subject
shall be turned-over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) or National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI).
b. If the inclusion of his/her name in the list is due to reasons other than a Warrant of
Arrest, the passport of the subject shall be confiscated and turned-over to the Legal
Division.
In both cases, the primary Immigration Officer shall prepare an Incident Report detailing the
subject's failed attempt to depart, duly noted by the Immigration Supervisor On-Duty, for
submission to the Office of the Commissioner within twenty-four (24) hours therefrom.

*This year, BI reported the recent interception of a Belarus national wanted by authorities in
the country for sexually assaulting a Filipino woman. He was apprehended by immigration
officers at the NAIA Terminal 3 last Jan. 5 upon arriving. He has a warrant of arrest issued by
the Bacoor City Regional Trial Court in November last year after prosecutors indicted him on
charges of rape with sexual assault. The BI's board of commissioners on Dec. 15, 2022 issued
an order placing Rudakou on its alert list and directing immigration personnel to turn him
over to law enforcement authorities if he is encountered at the
airport.(https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1192390)
 6. Civil Action
Rules of Court, Rule 111, Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a
criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the prosecution
starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable
opportunity to make such reservation.
When the offended party seeks to enforce civil liability against the accused by way of moral, nominal,
temperate, or exemplary damages without specifying the amount thereof in the complaint or
information, the filing fees thereof shall constitute a first lien on the judgment awarding such damages.
Where the amount of damages, other than actual, is specified in the complaint or information, the
corresponding filing fees shall be paid by the offended party upon the filing thereof in court.
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules, no filing fees shall be required for actual damages.
No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case,
but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil
action. (1a)
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the
corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the
filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages
claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal,
temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay additional filing fees based on the
amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently
awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the
judgment.
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be
consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule
governing consolidation of the civil and criminal actions.
In Rillo vs Rillo G.R. No. L-13172, April 28, 1960, the Supreme Court held that A civil action
may now be instituted and prosecuted to final judgment without awaiting the institution and
termination of a criminal action. Art. 30 of the Civil Code states that, “When a separate civil
action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings
are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be
sufficient to prove the act complained of”.
This article implies the right of an offended party to bring a separate civil action for the
criminal act without instituting the criminal proceedings for the prosecution of the offense. A
civil action may now be instituted without and prosecuted to final judgment without
awaiting the institution and termination of a criminal action.
In this case the defendant, using force and intimidation, cohabited and proceeded to have
carnal knowledge with the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a civil action. The defendant was
contending that the action is premature as there is no final judgment in a criminal case for
rape against the defendant and no cause of action has accrued against him.