-

THE CIVIL CODE
R.A. NO. 386
Article 14. Penal Laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippines territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.
In Philippine territory the law makes obligatory penal law and those of public security and safety upon all who live or sojourn. So, even if a Japanese citizen is a mere guest in the Philippines, he is still liable from the crime he commits here in the Philippines.
Illustration:
Vincent is a Japanese citizen who is having a vacation in Laguna. He met Rose and he decided to rape her inside his house. He is liable and can be charged with rape. According to Art. 14 everybody who sojourns on Philippine territory is bound by Philippine penal laws and those of public safety so He cannot invoke that he is a foreigner.
The rule would be different if Vincent is a Japanese Ambassador because the Philippine penal laws and those of public safety is subject to accepted principles of international law and treaty stipulations.
Ambassadors are granted diplomatic immunities. The remedy for them is to be recalled by his government on the ground that he is a persona non grata (personally unacceptable).
According to the principle of extraterritoriality there are foreigners who are exempted from the operation of Philippine laws, yet Merchant vessel is not covered. It is when the crime is committed in the Philippine territory by a foreign sovereign or diplomatic representatives; or when the crime is committed inside a public or armed vessel of a foreign country. But the rule on Merchant vessel is different when it enters Philippines it is subject to the laws of our country.

Conflicting theories on territoriality and exterritoriality.

  • French Theories – Crime happened on board which do not cause a treat in the security of the state are justiciable only by the courts of the country to which the vessel belongs. This emphasizes nationality.


  • English Theories – If the merchant vessels enter the port of a foreign state automatically, they become subject to local jurisdiction because it emphasizes the principle of territoriality.
Case Digest
US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7
Facts: In 1908, Stanford a steamship vessel commanded by H.N. Bull docked is engaged in the transport of animals in the port of Manila, Philippines. The vessel carried 674 heads of cattle without appropriate shelter and proper suitable means for securing the animals this resulted for most of the animals to get hurt and others have died.
This cruelty to animals is covered by the Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine Constitution. However, the cases cannot be filed because the ship is not licensed in the Philippines and does not know if the court sitting where the animals were disembarked would take jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board of a foreign ship while inside the territorial waters of the Philippines.
Held: Yes. The Philippine law shall apply if the vessel is within the territorial waters. Territorial waters are within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay.
As stated in Article 14 of the civil code a merchant vessel who committed a crime on board is bound by the Philippine jurisdiction. Therefore, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

Question: RB is a German Ambassador who rape a Filipina in the Philippines. Is he liable for the crime committed?

Answer: No. As stated in Article 14 of the civil code Ambassadors are granted diplomatic immunities. The remedy for them is to be recalled by his government on the ground that he is a persona non grata (personally unacceptable).
Reference/s:
·        Family Code of the Philippines                    Judge Albano, Ed Vincent S. (2017)
·        https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1910/jan1910/gr_l-5270_1910.html
Prepared by:
Kath Lyn B. Flores
College of Law
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Santa Cruz Laguna



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

-
  Article 126. The conjugal partnership terminates 1.       Upon the death of either spouse 2.       When there is a decree of legal separation 3.       When the marriage is annulled or declared void, or 4.       In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Articles 134 to 138. (175a) According to the conjugal partnership of gains regime , the couple’s properties will be like this: 1.       Properties acquired by the husband before he got married shall be exclusively his, the same way that the wife’s will be hers. 2.       However, when they get married their exclusive properties shall be joined as part of a one estate within the conjugal property and the “fruits” of those properties shall be shared for the duration of the marriage. In addition, any property acquired during their marriage...
Read more
-
Substitute and Special Parental Authority Article 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following persons shall exercise substitute parental authority over the child in order indicated: 1.       The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214; 2.       The oldest brother and sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified; and 3.       The child’s actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or disqualified. Whenever the appointment of a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. (39a,351a,354a) Rules: 1.       The Law states that the surviving grandparents are preferred over all other persons. 2.       The custody of a child may be awarded to strangers as provided by law. In certain...
Read more
-
  Article 26 (Requisites of Marriage) All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35(1), (4), (5) and (6), 36, 37 and 38. Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validity obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by E.O No. 227) Rules on foreign marriages of Filipinos It is valid in the Philippines if the marriage is between a Filipino citizen who solemnize in a foreign country. Except when the marriage abroad by a Filipinos is bigamous it is considered void even if valid on the country where it was celebrated. The Philippine law is the one who determines their legal capacity The injustice of the old p...
Read more