CASE DIGEST

LOCAL/FOREIGN

Submitted to:

Danilo Tupaz

Instructor

FORENSIC 06 (FORENSIC BALLISTIC)

Submitted by:

Villamer, Julios D.

4-E1

Submitted on:

December 2023
VILLAMER JULIOS D.

4-E1 BSCRIM

CASE DIGEST

LOCAL

Man wanted for Murder; nabbed with loose firearm in Oriental Mindoro

FACTS: The arrest occurred on Tuesday, September 6, 2022, in Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, Philippines,
around 11:40 PM.The suspect, identified as Roger Agustin Lucas, 47 years old, was apprehended in a joint
law enforcement operation conducted by personnel from Roxas Municipal Police Station and Oriental
Mindoro PPO 2nd Provincial Mobile Force Company.Lucas was arrested on the basis of a warrant of arrest
(WOA) dated December 11, 2014, issued by the Regional Trial Court in Roxàs, Oriental Mindoro. The
warrant was for the crime of murder, and it was specified that no bail was recommended.Upon the arrest,
law enforcement recovered one homemade shotgun (pugakang) loaded with two live 12-gauge
ammunition, as well as ten additional live 12-gauge ammunition.The arrested individual is currently in police
custody. The authorities plan to turn him over to the issuing court promptly.In addition to the murder
charges, a separate criminal complaint is being prepared against Lucas for violation of R.A. 10591 or the
Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

ISSUE: The primary issue is the arrest of Roger Agustin Lucas for the crime of murder, with the added
charges of possessing an illegal firearm and ammunition.

HELD/RULING: Roger Agustin Lucas is currently under police custody and is expected to be turned over to
the issuing court in compliance with the warrant of arrest. Meanwhile, preparations are underway to file a
separate criminal complaint against him for the violation of the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act.
VILLAMER JULIOS D.

4-E1 BSCRIM

CASE DIGEST

FOREIGN

Nicaragua V United States of America

FACTS: The United States challenged the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction in a 1984 suit against
Nicaragua, claiming it was responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities. The US argued that
Nicaragua failed to deposit a declaration, while Nicaragua relied on the 1946 declaration and its own
reliance on the 1946 declaration. The US also challenged Nicaragua's application to the I.C.J., citing its
1929 declaration with the Permanent Court of International Justice and its intent to submit to the
compulsory jurisdiction.

ISSUE: (1) Is the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between two states, if they both accept the Court’s
jurisdiction, within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice?
(2) Where no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, is the application of such a state to the
International Court of Justice admissible?

HELD: (1) Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a dispute between two states if each of the States
accepted the Court’s jurisdiction is within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Even though
Nicaragua declaration of 1929 was not deposited with the Permanent Court, because of the potential effect
it had that it would last for many years, it was valid.
Thus, it maintained its effect when Nicaragua became a party to the Statute of the I.C.J because the
declaration was made unconditionally and was valid for an unlimited period. The intention of the current
drafters of the current Statute was to maintain the greatest possible continuity between it and the
Permanent Court. Thus, when Nicaragua accepted the Statute, this would have been deemed that the
plaintiff had given its consent to the transfer of its declaration to the I.C.J.

(2) Yes. When no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, the application of such a state to the
International Court of Justice is admissible. The five grounds upon which the United States challenged the
admissibility of Nicaragua’s application were that the plaintiff failed because there is no “indispensable
parties” rule when it could not bring forth necessary parties, Nicaragua’s request of the Court to consider
the possibility of a threat to peace which is the exclusive province of the Security Council, failed due to the
fact that I.C.J. can exercise jurisdiction which is concurrent with that of the Security Council, that the I.C.J.
is unable to deal with situations involving ongoing armed conflict and that there is nothing compelling the
I.C.J. to decline to consider one aspect of a dispute just because the dispute has other aspects due to the
fact that the case is incompatible with the Contadora process to which Nicaragua is a party.

Discussion.

Although the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility are primarily based on the principle that the I.C.J.
has only as much power as that agreed to by the parties, these can be quite complicated. The 1946
declaration of the United States and the 1929 declaration of Nicaragua was the main focus of the case on
declaration and each of these declarations pointed out the respective parties’ intent as it related to the
I.C.J’s jurisdiction.