GENERALITY OF LAWS
Court-martial
[MILITARY COURTS]
Navales vs. Abaya
Facts:
-In GR No. 162341, Atty. Roberto Pulido, lawyer of herein case
petitioners, filed for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, seeking
release of his clients, being illegally detained by AFP.
-Chief of Staff of AFP, Gen. Narciso L. Abaya, released
Commitment Order dated August 2, 2003, ordering all major
service commanders and Chief of the ISAFP to take custodial
responsibility of all junior officers military personnel involved in
July 27, 2003 mutiny taking place in Oakwood Premier Apts,
Makati City for alleged violations of Articles of War.
-Oakwood Incident is referred to as:
At past 1 AM of July 27, 2003, more than 300 junior officers
and enlisted men from elite units of AFP, known as Magdalo
group, quietly took over Oakwood Apts perimeters, planted
explosives around the building and vicinity, snipers in place on
roof deck to air grievances against administration arroyo and
military corruption
On August 1, 2003, 321 said soldiers were later charged with
coup de tat (Art. 134-A of the RPC) in a case filed with the
Makati RTC, by DOJ, criminal case People vs. Capt.
Maestrocampo,et.al
Among charged include petitioners (writ of prohibition), 1Lt
Navales, et.al , and writ of habease corputs, Capt. Reaso, et.al.
On Sept 12, 2003, Omnibus Motion petition by 243 accused, for
assumption of jurisdiction of trial court over all charges filed
before military tribunal pursuant to RA 7055. And order
prosecution to present evidence to establish probable cause of
316 accused
On Oct 20, 2003, pending grant of omnibus motion, only 31 of
the original 321 were found with probable cause of coup de tat,
290 accused dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, including
petitioners for habeas and prohibition
-General Court-Martial filed charges against dismissed
petitioners in violation of Articles of War.
-On February 11, 2004, Makati RTC issued order on Omnibus
Motion, granting the jurisdiction of civil courts
-In these case herein, petitioners 1Lt Navales, et.al petitions for
writ of prohibition under Rule 65 of Rules of Court, seeking to
enjoin the General Court-Martial from proceeding to trial of
petitioners
Issue:
-whether the petitioners are entitled to writs of prohibition and
habeas corpus as personnel of military
Held:
-No, the court ruled in the negative.
Prohibition: General Court-Marial has jurisdiction over the case
filed against petitioners
Habeas Corpus: they are already charged before the General
-Court agrees on respondents argument that the omnibus
motion dated Feb 11, 2004 does not affect the petitioners since
in the amendment of the case dated Nov 18, petitioners are no
longer parties of interst, and therefore, they are not included in
the omnibus motion declaring the criminal act as non-service-
connected
-Feb 11, 2004 order of the RTC Branch 61 was made in
exercise of lack or excess jurisdiction, which nullifies the order.
It is in violation of RA No. 7055, Sec 1 in which military
offenses under certain Art. In Aricles of War shall be within the
jurisdiction of court-martial
DOCTRINE:
In view of the clear mandate of Rep. Act No. 7055, the
Regional Trial Court cannot divest the General Court-Martial of
its jurisdicdtion over those charged with violations of Articles 63
(Disrespect Toward the President etc.), 64 (Disrespect Toward
Superior Officer), 67 (Mutiny or Sedition), 96 (Conduct
Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman) and 97 (General
Article) of the Articles of War, as these are specifically included
as "service-connected offenses or crimes" under Section 1
thereof. Pursuant to the same provision of law, the military
courts have jurisdiction over these crimes or offenses.
(Navales, et. al. vs. Abaya, et. al, G.R. Nos. 162318-162341,
Oct. 25, 2004)
[FOREIGN OFFENDERS]
Liang vs. People
Facts:
- In 1994, petitioner, Jeffrey Liang, economist worker allegedly
uttered defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce
Cabal
Jeffrey Liang, was charged with two counts of Grave Oral
Defamation at MeTC of Mandaluyong which issued warrant of
arrest of petitioner. After bail of 2,400.00 for every charge,
MeTC released petitioner to custody of Security Officer of ADB
-Next day, DFA sent office of protocol to MeTC stating Liang is
covered with immunity under Rule 45 of ADB-Ph Govt
Agreement:
“Officers and Staff of the bank including purpose of this Article
experts, and consultants performing missions for the Bank shall
enjoy the following privileges and immunities:
a) Immunity from legal process with respect to the acts
performed by them in their official capacity except when Bank
waives the immunity”
MeTC Judge, without notice to prosecution dismissed the
charges.
-Prosecution filed for reconsideration on dismissal, opposed by
DFA.
Prosecution then filed with Pasig RTC petition for certoriari and
mandamus, which set aside the MeTC rulings, and ordered
MeTC to enforce the warrant of arrest it initially issued
-Petitioner’s petition for reconsideration subject to his immunity
was denied, and elevated petition to the Court.
Issue:
-whether immunity from legal process is granted to petitioner
under Rule 45 of ADB and Ph Govt Agreement
Held:
Petition denied
-First, Courts cannot blindly adhere to the communication of
DFA on petitioner’s immunity. In receiving DFA’s advice and
motu propio deprives the prosecution due process. Mere
invocation of immunity clause does not ipso facto result to
dropping of charges
-Immunity mentioned is subject to official capacity of the
petitioner, in which case,
-slandering a person could not possibly be covered by immunity
agreement, as our laws do not allow acts of crime in the name
of official duty. Under Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations, a diplomatic agent, unless action is exercised
outside his official duties.
DOCTRINE:
On Generality of Criminal Law. The foreign characteristic of the
offender does not exclude hom from operation of penal laws,
given that crime was acted on Ph Territory, all are obligatory.
Art. 14, Civil Code of the Philippines. Penal laws, and those of
public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live
and sojourn in Ph Territory, subject to the stipulations of public
international law, and to treaty stipulations
Municher vs. Scalzo
On 12 March 1990, Scalzo filed for motion to set aside the
order of default and to admit his answer to the complaint,
granted by court, proceeded to pre-trial.
-Scalzo arued that he acted in discharge of his official duties as
Drug Enforcement agent, and interposed a counterclaim of
P100,000.00 for attorneys and litigation expenses.
-On June 14, 1990, Scalzo futher filed motion for dismissal of
civil case on the ground that, as a special agent of US Drug
Enforcement, he is entitled to immunity, denied by RTC
-On July 27, 1990, Scalzo filed petition for certiorari and
dismissal of complaint, with injunction of this court, and was
referred to court of appeals. On October 31, 1990, Court of
Appeals sustained diplomatic immunity of Scalzo
-Municher filed for petition for review at the Court, and on Sept
24, 1992, Court reversed ruling of CA decision and remanded
the case to RTC for CA erred granting motio without
considering issue of authenticity of Diplomatic Note No, 414
Complaint likewise contained sufficient allegations that the
defendant did not act on his capacity as officer, and outside of
scope of his duties.
Issue:
The alleged diplomatic immunity of respondent valid for
subsequent dismissal of case against hilom
Held:
Petition for civil case denied by the court.
-The court recognizes commission of act of Scalzo within the
scope of his duty as Drug Enforcement Agent of US DOJ, and
shall have the diplomatic immunity against legal processes
DOCTRINE:
Exception to the principle on generality of the criminal law are
public international laws that provide for diplomatic immunity of
aliens
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERALITY PRINCIPLES
[TREATIES OR TREATY STIPULATIONS]
Principle of Pacta sunt servanda
-“Agreements must be kept”
-without such rules, no international agreement would be
binding or enforceable.
-Directly referred to international treaties such as the Vienna
Convention on Law of Treaties
WHO vs. Aquino
Facts:
-petitioner enjoins the respondent’s judge to prohibit from
further proceedings on the search warrant issued by said
judge’s court for COSAC officer, Dr. Leonce Verstuyft
The search warrant orders the search of the contents of 12
crates brought by Dr. Verstuyft housed at Eternit Corporation’s
Warehouse for possible taxation of dutiable items in said
properties
-Dr. Verstuyft was assigned by WHO on December 6, 1971 by
the WHO as Acting Assistant Director for Health Services in
Manila, is entitled to diplomatic immunity following the Host
Agreement bet PH Govt and WHO on July 22, 1951
-Petitioner arrived in the Philippines with 12 crates as
unaccompanied baggage on January 10, 1972 and were stored
in Eternit Warehouse as a gesture of Mr. Beng, former patient
of Dr. Verstuyft
-On March 3, 1972, respondent judge ordered for the search
warrant as the only means to make known the contents of crate
for alleged violation of RA 4712: Tarrifs and Customs Code
-On March 6, 1972, upon protest of Dr. Francisco Dy, protested
as Dr. Vestuyft has diplomatic immunity pursuant to WHO host
agreement.
Such diplomatic immunity carries with it, among other
diplomatic privileges and immunities, personal inviolability,
inviolability of the official's properties, exemption from local
jurisdiction, and exemption from taxation and customs
duties.
-Sec. of DFA, Carlos Romulo advised the respondent judge on
the diplomatic immunity of petitioner

Respondent judge set the Foreign Secretary's request for

hearing and heard the same on March 16, 1972, but [TREATIES OR TREATY STIPULATIONS]
notwithstanding the official plea of diplomatic immunity
interposed by a duly authorized representative of the Schneckenburger vs. Moran
Department of Foreign Affairs who furnished the respondent
Facts:
judge with a list of the articles brought in by petitioner Verstuyft,
-Petitioner, Rodolfo A. Schneckenburger, an accredited
-On March 24, 1972, Verstuyft appeared to plead immunity,
honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila, on June 11, 1934 was
and on April 12, 1972 petition to quash search warrant was
charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with falsification
denied by respondent judge.
of a private document
May 8, 1972, Solicitor General joined the petition to quash
-petitioner objects on grounds that as a consul, Manila Court
search warrant, further denied by respondent judge.
has no jurisdiction to try him, pursuant to the Constitution of the
- Petitioner Verstuyft has in this Court been joined by the World US and PH.
Health Organization (WHO) itself in full assertion of petitioner
-With objection overruled, petitioner files before Court writ of
Verstuyft's being entitled "to all privileges and immunities,
prohibition against court of first instance
exemptions and facilities accorded to diplomatic envoys in
accordance with international law" under section 24 of the Host -Petitioner contends, that under Article III, section 2, of the
Agreement. Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court of the
United States has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting
Issue:
ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and such
-If Dr. Vestuyft is exempted from RA 4712 per his diplomatic jurisdiction excludes the courts of the Philippines;
immunity as officer of WHO
Issue:
-Petition writs of certiorari and prohibition
If the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over
Held: criminal case against petitioner

-Petitions granted, with Temporary Restraining Order of Search
Warrant hereby made permanent, respondent court is hereby
commanded to desist from further proceedings in the matter
- It is a recognized principle of international law and under our
system of separation of powers that diplomatic immunity is
essentially a political question and courts should refuse to look
beyond a determination by the executive branch of the
government, 8 and where the plea of diplomatic immunity is
recognized and affirmed by the executive branch of the
government as in the case at bar, it is then the duty of the
courts to accept the claim of immunity upon appropriate
suggestion by the principal law officer of the government, the
Solicitor General in this case, or other officer acting under his
direction.
If consuls are covered of PH Laws as an international officer
Held:
We conclude, therefore, that the Court of First Instance of
Manila has jurisdiction to try the petitioner, and that the petition
for a writ of prohibition must be denied. So ordered.
We find no merit in the contention that Article III, section 2, of
the Constitution of the United States governs this case. We do
not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the
constitutional provision relied upon by the petitioner extended
ex propio vigore over the Philippines
REYES: Consuls are not entitled to the privileges and
immunities of an ambassador or minister

-the Philippine Government is bound by the procedure laid In the absence of a treaty to the contrary, a consul is not
down in Article VII of the Convention on the Privileges and exempt from criminal prosecution for violations of the laws
Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations of the country where he resides

-Respondent judge is further found to have acted without

jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion
 en banc dated April 7, 1988 and reiterated in the Resolution
dated April 26, 1988 is LIFTED

[ON LAWS OF PREFRENTIAL APPLICATION]

Art. VI, Section 11, 1987 Consti:
A Senator, or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in
all offenses punishable by not more than six years of
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in
session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in
any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in
any committee thereof.
RULING:
First Issue – moot and academic
-Due process was waived when Beltran filed Motion to declare
proceedings closed, instead of submitting a counter-affidavit
Second issue – No constitutional violation; no grave abuse
of discretion of the RTC judge

CASES: Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal

responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
[ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY] existence of probable cause

Soliven vs. Makasiar
FACTS:
-President Aquino filed a libel complaint against Luis Beltran for
stating in his column article in Philippine Star that the former
was hiding under her bed during the coup attempt in 1987
-President Aquino likewise filed a complaint against Philippine
Star EIC Maximo Soliven
-On____ ___RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest against
beltran and soliven
-On March 30, 1988, Secretary of Justice denied petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration on their libel case and upheld
resolution of USEC for Justice sustaining the City’s Fiscal
finding of prima facie case against petitioners
See Circular No. 12 of Supreme Court on issuance of warrants
of arrest
Third issue – On the issue that presidential immunity from
suit impose a correlative disability to file suit:
-beltran contends that if criminal proceedings ensue based on
President’s filed complaint, she may subsequently have to be a
witness for prosecution
-however, there is nothing in our laws that would prevent the
President from waiving the privilege. Thus, if so minded the
President may shed the protection afforded by the privilege and
submit to the court's jurisdiction. The choice of whether to
exercise the privilege or to waive it is solely the President's
prerogative. It is a decision that cannot be assumed and
imposed by any other person.

Subsequent appeal on April 7, 1988 was further denied by

SOJ, On May 2, 1988, President Aquino affirmed the resolution
of SOJ

-during the preliminary investigation, Luis Beltran filed for

motion to declare proceedings closed

-Soliven Beltran et.al. were charged of 2 years of imprisonment,

and 2 million in moral damages

ISSUES:

1 Whether or not petitioners were denied due process when

information for libel were filed against them although the finding
of the existence of prima facie is still under review by the
Secretary of Justice

2 Whether or not the constitutional rights of Beltran were

violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his
arrest without personally examining the complainant and the
witnesses, if any to determine probable cause

3 Whether or not the President of the Philippines, under the

constitution, may initiate criminal proceedings against the
petitioners through filing of a complaint-affidavit

HELD: WHEREFORE, finding no grave abuse of discretion

amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
public respondents, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the
petitions in G. R. Nos. 82585, 82827 and 83979. The Order to
maintain the status quo contained in the Resolution of the Court
[ON IMPEACHABLE OFFICIALS]
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Honorable Court of Appeals
FACTS:
-On December 29, 1999, 22 officials of OMB for Visayas filed a
complaint with OMB requesting investigation on the basis of
allegations that then deputy omb for visayas, Arturo Mojica
committed the ff:
1. Sexual harassment against Rayvi Padua-Varona;
2. Mulcting money from confidential employees James Alueta
and Eden Kiamco; and
3. Oppression against all employees in not releasing the
₱7,200.00 benefits of OMB-Visayas employees on the date the
said amount was due for release
-FFIB was formed by OMB-manila, filing a report on the strong
evidence on the allegations which the latter referred to
committee of peers, subsequently recommended to convert
investigation for purpose of impeachment
-OMB-manila disapproved of recommendation stating that
ombudsman and deputies, and the Special Prosecutor are not
removable by impeachment. OMB-manila directed the
committee of peers through memorandum to evaluate the
merits of the case and if warranted by evidence, to conduct
administrative and criminal investigations
-COP on peers in a formal report, found sufficient cause to
warrant preliminary investigation and administrative
adjudication against Dep Omb Arturo Mojica for criminal and
administrative cases
-On April 6, 2000 COP directed Mojica in padua-varona v.
Mojica for violation of RA 7877 and Sec 3, par b and c of RA
3019 to submit converting evidence. On April 10 2000, OMB
manila issued memo to direct COP for administrative
proceedings, OMB Visayas Employees vs. Mojica for grft and
corruption
-Respondent filed before the court of appeals, for certiorari and
praying for TRO on the petitions filed against him, and restrain
his suspension,2 convert TRO to Writ of Preliminary Injunction,
and declare null and void acts of OMB-manila and COP.
-CA granted TRO and reqd omb to comment and show cause
why no writ of prelim injunction would be issued
-
Lozada vs. Macapagal-Arroyo
FACTS:
-Respondents of herein case are allegedly involved in corrupt
act during transaction of the Ph Govetnment with the National
Broadband Network and ZTE Corporation, a Chones
manufacturer of telecommunications equipment.
-Lozada, then President and CEO of Philippine Forest
Corporation served as consultatnt to NEDA Sec Neri,
Lozada observed anomalies in the NBN-ZTE deal and resorted
to the Senat Blue Ribbon Committee, further issued subpoena
to testify on Jan 30, 2008.
-Lozada’s failure to appear was due to a purported official trip
to London as annunounced by DENR Sec Lito Atienza and
ordered by Usec Gaite
-Senate issued contempt against loizada and ordered his arrest
and detention
-On feb 5, 2008 by sec atienza’s permission, lozada went home
from hongkong, upon arrival, several men seized the petitioner
and took his bag
-Lozada, in the bathroom called his brother Arturo to inform his
siutaiton
Men then led hm to a car. On the passenger seat is Police
Valeroso who seems to contact other indivisuals
-sec Atienza called lozada to pacify his wife making statements
on his return and that Atienza will confer with ES Ermita and
Ma’am referring to Pres Gloria
-Vehicle was tailed, and traversed towards directon of Laguna,
along the way, lozada was asked to sign an antedated letter for
police protection
-the group stopped at a restaurant to meet with officers from
the Police Special Protection Office, where lozada was asked
to fill in the blanks 0f a prepared affidacit
-he convinced he be brought home to la sale greenhills and met
with violeta and carmen lozada, they were surrounded by police
men
-the next day, violeta filed petition for habeas corpus, Arturo
filed writ of amparo,and petitioned for Temporary Protection
Oder and Inspectin and Prodcution rders
-lozada was requested by Sec, Defensor to refute reports of his
abductoion and deny knowledge of alleged anomalies of NBN-
ZTE deal and gave 50k
On feb 7, Lozada held a press conference and contacted the
Sgt At Arms from tbe senate, since afer the press conference hi
and his family were since then harassed\
-court issued resolution, combinignhabeas corpus case and
amparo case, requirif respondents to comment on habeas
corpus case, issued writ of amparo, and redirected the case to
CA
-respondents filed manifestation an motion denying
allegaations on illegally depriving lozada of liberty. On feb 8,
loada was in the custody of the senate
-habeas corpus case dismissed bcause of lozada’s presence
-motion to issue subpoena for involved on feb 5 deniedbeing
irrelevant to the case
-President arroyo dropped as respondent as she was
incumbent at that time of petioione
-CA denied writ of amparo due to petitioners not having
substantial evidence to find respondents guilty.
-Petitioners filed another petitione
Issue
Whether the Court a [q]uo erred in dropping as respondent
Pres. Gloria Arroyo despite her failure to submit a verified
return and personally claim presidential immunity in a way not
in accord with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
Held
-writ of amaprao denied.
The President as provided in the ______has the immunity from
suit during his tenure in the office or actual incumbency
Conversely, this presidential privilege of immunity cannot be
invoked by a non-sitting president even for acts committed
during his or her tenure.69
In the case at bar, the events that gave rise to the present
action, as well as the filing of the original Petition and the
issuance of the CA Decision, occurred during the incumbency
of former President Arroyo. In that respect, it was proper for the
court a quo to have dropped her as a respondent on account of
her presidential immunity from suit.
It must be underscored, however, that since her tenure of office
has already ended, former President Arroyo can no longer
invoke the privilege of presidential immunity as a defense to
evade judicial determination of her responsibility or
accountability for the alleged violation or threatened violation of
the right to life, liberty and security of Lozada.
[ON Prejudicial question]
Bobis v Bobis
FACTS
-Respondent was married to maria dulce Javier, and contracted
a second marrage with petitioner,
-A criminal case on bigamy was filed before RTC in quezon city
against isagani bobis.
-thereafter, he filed a civil action to annul his first marriage on
the grounds that they do not have marriage license.
Trial judge granted the motion, to suspend criminal case
-petitioner files before this court on certiorari
-Petitioner argues that respondent should have first obtained a
judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage before entering
into the second marriage
ISSUE:
-Whethere or not subsequent filing fro annulment of first
marriage constitute a prejudicial question to a criminal
case for bigamy
HELD:
Preition was granted, reversing the dismissal of RTC on
criminal case
“prejudicial question based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the accused”
gorunds
a. civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to
the issue raised in the criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
invoking the prejudicial question deems admission of the
essential elements of the crime
However it is clearly stated in art 40 of the family code that prior
to second marriage, nullity must be first declared by competent
courts and not by the parties involved

[CODE OF MUSLIM PERSONAL LAWS OF THE
PHILIPPINES]
Nollora vs People
FACTS
-Atilano Nollora married Rowena geraldino while marriage to
jesusa nollora still valid
-upon learning that her husband has a second wife, Rowena
went back to the ph from Saudi to confront alleged wife of
atilano. Rowena affirmed that she had prior knowledge on the
first marriage oabut still continued to marry herein petitioner
-Atilano further claimed he is a muslim convert before
contracting with 1st marriage therefore entitled to marry 4 wives
and presented to court certification however had no prior
knowledge on hsis religion on the 1st marriage contract and
appearing catholic in the 2nd marriage contract single pa
-Trial Court’s ruled to convict Nollora and acquit Geraldino
ISSUE
On succeeding petitions of Atilano Nollora to the Appellate and
to the Court, whether or not he is exempted from bigamy
following the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines
Invoking art 41 civil code, and art 27 of PD 1083: code of
muslim personal laws of the Ph
-In Islam rule, Monogamy is the rule, polygamy is allowed only
to meet urgent needs. Polygamy is tolerated, not encouraged.
Any subsequent marriages must be notified with Shari’a Circuit
court and furnish copy to wives, for any objection, agama
arbitration council shall be constituted
Atilano did not follow procedure, and did not declare his
conversion in both marriages, ociting his criminal intent
The elements of the crime of bigamy are:
1. That the offender has been legally married.
2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case
his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to
the Civil Code.
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage.
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity
"[i]n case of a marriage between a Muslim
and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in
accordance with Muslim law or this Code, the
[Family Code of the Philippines, or Executive
Order No. 209, in lieu of the Civil Code of the
Philippines] shall apply."
[CASE LAW]
Estrada vs. Desierto
-The petitioner, then incumbent President
Ejecrcito Estrada, and spark of his
involvement in jueteng operations as exposed
by Ilocos Sur Governor chavit singson, and
calls
-
[TERRIRORIALITY]
Reagan v Commissioner on Internal
Revenue
FACTS
-Pettiiroer a civilian employee of an American
corporation providing Technical assistance to
US Air Forces in PH at the Clark Field Air
Base at Pampanga based on international
agreements of ph with USA
Petitioner imported a car to the ph before
expiration of his duty, he then secured permit
from air base commander to sell the car, and
thus sale was made to a US citizen employed
also in the Ph Military base
-disputing that he need not to pay income tax
on the automobile he had improted to the PH,
as demanded by Commission on Internal
Revenue, as the sale was made outside the
Philippine Terrirtory and therefore beyond
jurisdictional power to tax
-the petitioner is requesting for refund of his
income tax, to which the court of tax appeals
denied
ISSUE
Whether or not the contention of the petitioner
is valid on territoriality
The only issue submitted for our resolution is
whether or not the said income tax of P2,979.00
was legally collected by respondent for petitioner
HELD
The Court affirmed the decision of the Court if
Tax appeals, and the refund petition denied
DOCTRINE:
Art 14 of Civil Code on territoriality
Auto-limitation
Illimitable competence
In Chief Justive Taney in 1957 decision "For
undoubtedly every person who is found within
the limits of a government, whether the
temporary purposes or as a resident, is bound by
its laws."
Nothing In the Military Bases Agreements does it
state that they are considered a territory separate
from the Philippines, therefore they are bound to
the laws of the land.
FOR BLOCK DIGESTS
On Elements of Felonies
-Volunteranisms (Intelligence)
FACTS:
-2 Criminal cases was filed against herein
respondents for the murder of Marcelo
Barruela and Segundo Maguad in
Pontevedra, Capiz on May 29, 1986
Each case filed for murder of Segundo, and
another for Marcelo
-accused namely Isidro Cordova, Reynaldo
Cordova, Eduardo Cordova, and Ernesto
Estorque, Jr. (13 yrs old that time), Fredie
Buenconsejo allegedly willfully confederated
together and with evident premeditation killed
Marcelo and Segundo
-Rodolfo Maguad (son of Segundo) and
Teresita Barruela (wife of Marcelo) both
testified against the accused.
At around 7 pm on the night of 29 May, the
accused came to the house of Barruelas in
Pontevedra led by Eduardo Cordova who
introduced himself as Richard De La Torre
Eduardo was seen with Isidro Barruela,
asking for marcelo to lend them his (marcelo)
boat. Marcelo refused due to lack of gasoline
for the boat.
Later Marcelo asked how many will use the
boat, Eduardo then said they were four.
Reynaldo emerged from the dark and fired 6
rapid gunshots at Marcelo. Teresita and
Rodolfo heard 2 more gunshots, turning out to
have killed Segundo
Norberto Javier who was fishing in the night of
29th May noticed a motorboat carrying
Eduardo Cordova, Reynaldo Cordova, Isidro
Cordova, Jr., Freddie Buenconsejo and
Ernesto Estorque, Jr., the "driver" of the boat
Accused Ernesto – in bantigue piloted his
grandmother;s motorboat (Clarita) to harvest
fish in fishtraps adjoining baruella’s fishpond.
Group of men headed by Commander Jojo
ordered Ernesto and Clarita to ferry the group
to Binangig
-On March 11 1988, RTC convicted Rey
Cordova, Eduardo Cordova and Ernesto
Estorque as accessory after the fact, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, Isidro and Freddie
acquitted
-Ernesto Estorque, Jr., with discernment
having committed the crime as an accessory,
appreciating the special mitigating
circumstance of minority, with no aggravating
circumstance offsetting this, to the straight
penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months
(Art. 68 No. 2, RPC, in relation to Presidential
Decree No. 603, as amended by PD 1179,
Art. 192, last paragraph) and the payment of
P2,000.00, and 1,000.00 as indemnity to the
deceased’s heirs
-Accused filed appeal and was transferred to
the Court.
-Among all appeals, RTC erred in recognizing
Eduardo Cordova as a mentally deranged
person
ISSUE:
Among all other issues presented by the
appellants, whether or not the court erred in
the conviction of Eduardo Cordova as a
“mentally deranged” person, indicating his
discernment in the murder
RULING:
[CRIMES MALA IN SE AND MALA
PROHIBITIA]
Mala Prohibita
Dunlao vs CA
FACTS:
-Dunlao, herein appellant was convicted in
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
-Lost Farrowing Crates and G.I. Pipes
amounting to 20,000.00 were found displayed
within the shop compound of Dunlao
-Dunlao now appeals that he acted in good
faith and without criminal intent when he took
in the items unloaded to his premises by
Jeepney-riding men
ISSUE
Whether or not Dunlao’s contention that he
had no intent of selling or gaining from items
possessed, a valid defense against the Anti-
Fencing Law
RULING
-Court affirms the decision of the Court of
Appeals, finding Dunlao guilty
DOCTRINE
Mala in se vs Mala Prohibita
Mala in se – acts are wrong by themselves
(morally wrong)
Mala Prohibita – makes illegal acts because a
positive law forbids them, was the law been
violated?
In this case, whether the accused-appellant
had intention or not is immaterial because of
Mala Prohibita. Sec 5 of the PD on Anti-
Fencing provides that mere possession items
subject of robbery/theft is prima facie
evidence of fencing.
Moreover, evidence shows that the stolen
items were displayed, it is assumed that
Dunlao had intention of selling them