1. The lower court has jurisdiction over the offense of smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel within Philippine territorial waters, as this act has deleterious effects within the Philippines and contravenes domestic law.
2. The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try defendants accused of piracy and related crimes committed against a Dutch vessel in Philippine waters, as piracy is a crime against all mankind that can be punished in any competent tribunal.
3. The city court, not the Court of First Instance, has proper jurisdiction over a 1974 estafa case involving bouncing checks, as the increased penalty under a 1975 decree does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before the decree's effective date.
1. The lower court has jurisdiction over the offense of smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel within Philippine territorial waters, as this act has deleterious effects within the Philippines and contravenes domestic law.
2. The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try defendants accused of piracy and related crimes committed against a Dutch vessel in Philippine waters, as piracy is a crime against all mankind that can be punished in any competent tribunal.
3. The city court, not the Court of First Instance, has proper jurisdiction over a 1974 estafa case involving bouncing checks, as the increased penalty under a 1975 decree does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before the decree's effective date.
1. The lower court has jurisdiction over the offense of smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel within Philippine territorial waters, as this act has deleterious effects within the Philippines and contravenes domestic law.
2. The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try defendants accused of piracy and related crimes committed against a Dutch vessel in Philippine waters, as piracy is a crime against all mankind that can be punished in any competent tribunal.
3. The city court, not the Court of First Instance, has proper jurisdiction over a 1974 estafa case involving bouncing checks, as the increased penalty under a 1975 decree does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before the decree's effective date.
1. The lower court has jurisdiction over the offense of smoking opium aboard a foreign vessel within Philippine territorial waters, as this act has deleterious effects within the Philippines and contravenes domestic law.
2. The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to try defendants accused of piracy and related crimes committed against a Dutch vessel in Philippine waters, as piracy is a crime against all mankind that can be punished in any competent tribunal.
3. The city court, not the Court of First Instance, has proper jurisdiction over a 1974 estafa case involving bouncing checks, as the increased penalty under a 1975 decree does not apply retroactively to offenses committed before the decree's effective date.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
PEOPLE V.
DERILO | GR 117818 |APRIL stand in place of the evidence that must be
18, 1997 presented and is called for by said Section 3 of Rule 116. Trial courts should no longer assume FACTS: that a plea of guilty includes an admission of the attending circumstances alleged in the information Roman Derilo and his company were charged as they are now required to demand that the with murder committed by a band before the CFI prosecution should prove the exact liability of the of Borongan, Eastern Samar. The information accused. alleges that the accused with treachery and evident premeditation, with intent to kill, with the use of II. firearm and bolos, confederated and helped one another did then and there shot and stabbed one Although Republic Act No. 7659 amended Article Perpetua Adalim thus inflicting injuries which 248 of the Code by imposing a heavier penalty for caused her death. Only Baldimo was apprehended. murder than that originally prescribed, the new In his arraignment he pleaded not guilty which he penalty provided in Section 6 of said amendatory later substituted with one of guilty. statute being reclusion perpetua to death cannot be applied to the crime of murder committed in ISSUES: 1982 based on the principle of prospectivity of penal laws. Further, the presumption is that I. Whether the plea of guilt of the accused laws operate prospectively, unless the contrary constitutes an admission of all material facts in clearly appears or is clearly, plainly and the information including the aggravating unequivocally expressed or necessarily circumstances alleged implied. II. Whether the penalty of death can be imposed Prior thereto, the Constitution took effect and it is upon the accused considering the peculiar clear that any death penalty already imposed shall antecedents on the application of two penal be reduced to reclusion perpetua. Appellant, it will laws be recalled, was sentenced in 1986 to suffer the death penalty as then provided under the Revised Penal Code. With the ratification of the RULING: Constitution in 1987, that sentence should have I. been reduced to reclusion perpetua under such constitutional fiat. No. Qualifying and aggravating circumstance before being taken into consideration for the PEOPLE V. VILLARAZA | GR L-46228 | purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty to JANUARY 17, 1978 be imposed must be proved with equal certainty FACTS: and clearness as that which establishes the commission of the act charged as the criminal Caesar Puerto was charged with estafa in the city offense. It is not only the central fact of a killing court of Cagayan de Oro City for having issued on that must be shown beyond reasonable doubt; October 16, 1974 two bouncing checks. City judge every qualifying or aggravating circumstance Villaraza elevated the case for trial to the Court of alleged to have been present and to have attended First Instance because in his opinion the case falls such killing, must similarly be shown by the same within the exclusive original jurisdiction of that degree of proof. There was no evidence adduced court. According to Villaraza, estafa, as committed by the prosecution to prove the supposed evident by the accused is punishable by prision mayor premeditation. Evident premeditation must be medium under Presidential Decree No. 818 which based on external facts and must be evident, not took effect on October 22, 1975 and which merely suspected, indicating deliberate planning. amended article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. Upon petition of the prosecution, the CFI of As the pertinent principle lays down a rule of Misamis Oriental returned the case to the city procedure, the plea of guilty of an accused cannot court because in its opinion the case falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts and, Yes. The lower court has jurisdiction over the the city court, as the first court should try it. offense. The mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit was held not triable by our ISSUE: courts, because it is the primary object of our Opium Law to protect the inhabitants of the Whether the CFI has jurisdiction to try the instant Philippines against the disastrous effects entailed case by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such RULING: a ship, without being used in our territory, does not bring about in the said territory those effects The case was properly filed with the city court that our statute contemplates avoiding. Hence which has original jurisdiction over it. The estafa such a mere possession is not considered a imputed to Caesar Puerto is punishable under disturbance of the public order. article 315 of the Revised Penal Code by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional minimum. But to smoke opium within our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship, is The penalty of prision mayor medium, imposed by certainly a breach of the public order here Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to established, because it causes such drug to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks produce its pernicious effects within our territory. which was committed on or after October 22, .It seriously contravenes the purpose that our 1975. Legislature has in mind in enacting the aforesaid repressive statute. That increased penalty does not apply to estafa committed by Puerto on October 16, 1974. To PEOPLE V. LOL-LO | GR 17958 | apply it to Puerto would make the decree an ex FEBRUARY 27, 1922 post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of the Revised FACTS: Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the A boat of Dutch possession arrived between the Constitution. Islands of Buang and Bukid at 7 oclock in the evening. There, the boat was surrounded by six PEOPLE V. WONG CHENG | GR NO. vintas manned by twenty-four Moros all armed. 18924 | OCTOBER 19, 1922 The Moros first asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, they took for themselves all of the FACTS: cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally Wong Cheng was accused of having illegally violated two of the women. All of the persons on smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel the Dutch boat, with the exception of the two Changsa of English nationality while said vessel young women, were again placed on it and holes was anchored in Manila Bay two and a half miles were made in it, with the idea that it would from the shores of the city. submerge. Two of the Moro marauders were Lol- lo and Saraw. Lol-lo also raped one of the women. The defendant presented his demurrer to the information which alleged lack of jurisdiction on Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in the part of the lower court, which was granted and South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Philippine Islands. dismissed the case. There they were arrested and were charged in the Court of First Instance of Sulu with the crime of ISSUE: piracy. A demurrer was interposed by counsel de officio for the Moros, based on the grounds that the Whether the lower court has jurisdiction over the offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of offense the Court of First Instance, nor of any court of the Philippine Islands, and that the facts did not RULING: constitute a public offense, under the laws in force in the Philippine Islands. ISSUE:
Whether the crime is punishable under the
Philippine Court
RULING:
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. 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."
XXX Ballots Which Contain Prefixes Such As "Sir", "MR.", "Datu", "Don", "Ginoo", "Hon.", "Gob". or Suffixes Like "Hijo", "JR.", "Segundo", Are Valid XXX