CHAPTER 26: CRIMINAL LAW
PRINCIPLES AND CASES IN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:
A PROCEDURAL APPROACH
-oOo-
MARK ANGELO S. DELA PEÑA
To cite this online book, please use the following:
Dela Peña. 2023. "Principles and Cases in Private International Law: A Procedural Approach." Published by Project Jurisprudence - Philippines. Published: September 17, 2023. Link: [Insert link] Last accessed: [Insert date of access].
x---------------------------------------------x
CHAPTER 26:
In the field of private international law, criminal law also becomes relevant. This is especially true for landlocked adjacent states like, for example, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Utah. On the other hand, in the Philippines, which is an archipelagic state, conflict of laws problems arising from delict are seldom, except in cases of extradition, consular relations, diplomatic relations and others.
Philippine criminal law is said to have three characteristics: (a) generality; (b) territoriality; and, (c) prospectivity. Generality and territoriality are fertile grounds for private international law problems to grow.
Under the principle of generality, penal laws are binding to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.[1] This means that any person, whether a resident, a non-resident, a citizen, a non-citizen, a passerby, a remainer, a stranger or a familiar face, is subject to the force and effect of Philippine criminal laws and cannot validly or successfully interpose the defense the that s/he is merely sojourning or taking a tour in the Philippine territory. This principle is supported by Article 14 of the New Civil Code of teh Philippines, which provides: “Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.”
Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws of the Philippines do not extend their force and effect beyond the territorial limits of the Philippines.[2] In the same way that the generality principle admits exceptions, the territoriality principle is also subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.[3]
If a Filipino citizen punches a Japanese while drinking sake in Tokyo, Japan, whatever criminal liability the former may have incurred is properly within the jurisdiction of the proper courts of Japan. The Japanese victim cannot successfully fly into the Philippines and pursue a criminal action in a Philippine forum, the criminal act having been committed outside the Philippine national territory. Nonetheless, the Japanese victim is not left without recourse; an action for tort may be commenced against the Filipino because liabilities arising from tort are not limited by the territoriality principle of criminal laws.
x---------------------------------------------x
[1] Malingin v. Sandagan, G.R. No. 240056, October 12, 2020.
[2] See People v. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001.
[3] Article 14 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. See also Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 223705, August 14, 2019, 859 Phil. 560.
