[G.R. No.

125865 January 28, 2000]

JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG), petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Doctrines/Principles Involved

Constitution (1987), Art. VI, Sec 1

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate
and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.

Civil Code, Art 14

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.

Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. 5

Criminal Jurisdiction

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article:

(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to
offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.

(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States
over United States personnel in the Philippines.

2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to
offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the
Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.

(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States Personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable
under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.

(c) For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this Article, an offense relating to security
means:

(1) treason;

(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.

3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply:
 (a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses
committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs 1 (b), 2 (b),
and 3 (b) of this Article.

(b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over
United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to:

(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses
solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and

(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.

(c) The authorities of either government may request the authorites of the other government to
waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.

(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good
order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United
States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance
to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular
importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within
twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request.

(e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by
authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission
done in the performance of official duty, the commander shall issue a certificate setting forth
such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the
Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of
paragraph 3 (b) (2) of this Article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines
believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States
military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at
the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military
authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States
military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases,
and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken.

(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the
authorities of the other government as soon as possible.

(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the
disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States
have the right to exercise jurisdiction.

4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and United States shall
assist in each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over
to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or
detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction.
Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention
of any United States personnel.

6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall
immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of
the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon
formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to
those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which
the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its
position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall
take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year,
the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not
include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which
scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by
Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.

7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each
other in the carrying out of all necessary investigation into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for
the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in
proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense.

8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this Article and
have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had
their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same
offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military
authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the
act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities.

9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine
authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At
the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled:

(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;

(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and
to have reasonable time to prepare a defense;

(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses;

(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses;

(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as
nationals of the Philippines;
 (f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;

(g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and
to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public
unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the
proceedings.

10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried
out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States
personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance.

11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction and
shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.

JURISPRUDENCE
International Law; Diplomatic Immunity; International Organizations; Asian Development Bank; The
slander of a person, by any stretch, cannot be considered as falling within the purview of the immunity
granted to ADB officers and personnel - slander cannot be considered as an act performed in an official
capacity. - After a careful deliberation of the arguments raised in petitioner’s and intervenor’s Motions
for Reconsideration, we find no cogent reason to disturb our Decision of January 28, 2000. As we have
stated therein, the slander of a person, by any stretch, cannot be considered as falling within the
purview of the immunity granted to ADB officers and personnel. Petitioner argues that the Decision had
the effect of prejudging the criminal case for oral defamation against him. We wish to stress that it did
not. What we merely stated therein is that slander, in general, cannot be considered as an act
performed in an official capacity. The issue of whether or not petitioner’s utterances constituted oral
defamation is still for the trial court to determine.

PUNO, J., Concurring Opinion:

International Law; Diplomatic Immunity; International Organizations: Words and Phrases; “International
Organization,” Defined. - The term “international organizations”-“is generally used to describe an
organization set up by agreement between two or more states. Under contemporary international law,
such organizations are endowed with some degree of international legal personality such that they are
capable of exercising specific rights, duties and powers. They are organized mainly as a means for
conducting general international business in which the member states have an interest.”

Same; Same; Same; Same; “International Public Officials,” Defined. - International public officials have
been defined as: “x x x persons who, on the basis of an international treaty constituting a particular
international community, are appointed by this international community, or by an organ of it, and are
under its control to exercise, in a continuous way, functions in the interest of this particular
international community, and who are subject to a particular personal status.”

Same; Same; Same; Same; “Specialized Agencies,” Defined.

- “Specialized agencies” are international organizations having functions in particular fields, such as
posts, telecommunications, railways, canals, rivers, sea transport, civil aviation, meteorology, atomic
energy, finance, trade, education and culture, health and refugees.
Same; Same; Same; The nature and degree of immunities vary depending on who the recipient is. - A
perusal of the immunities provisions in various international conventions and agreements will show that
the nature and degree of immunities vary depending on who the recipient is.

Same; Same: Same; “Diplomatic Immunities” and “International Immunities,” Distinguished. - There are
three major differences between diplomatic and international immunities. Firstly, one of the recognized
limitations of diplomatic immunity is that members of the diplomatic staff of a mission may be
appointed from among the nationals of the receiving State only with the express consent of that State;
apart from inviolability and immunity from jurisdiction in respect of official acts performed in the
exercise of their functions, nationals enjoy only such privileges and immunities as may be granted by the
receiving State. International immunities may be specially important in relation to the State of which the
official is a national. Secondly, the immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving
State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State; in the case of international
immunities there is no sending State and an equivalent for the jurisdiction of the sending State
therefore has to be found either in waiver of immunity or in some international disciplinary or judicial
procedure. Thirdly, the effective sanctions which secure respect for diplomatic immunity are the
principle of reciprocity and the danger of retaliation by the aggrieved State; international immunities
enjoy no similar protection.

Same; Same; Same; Methods of Granting Privileges and Immunities to Personnel of International
Organizations. - Positive international law has devised three methods of granting privileges and
immunities to the personnel of international organizations. The first is by simple conventional
stipulation, as was the case in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The second is by internal
legislation whereby the government of a state, upon whose territory the international organization is to
carry out its functions, recognizes the international character of the organization and grants, by
unilateral measures, certain privileges and immunities to better assure the successful functioning of the
organization and its personnel. In this situation, treaty obligation for the state in question to grant
concessions is lacking. Such was the case with the Central Commission of the Rhine at Strasbourg and
the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome. The third is a combination of the first two. In this third
method, one finds a conventional obligation to recognize a certain status of an international
organization and its personnel, but the status is described in broad and general terms. The specific
definition and application of those general terms are determined by an accord between the organization
itself and the state wherein it is located. This is the case with the League of Nations, the Permanent
Court of Justice, and the United Nations. The Asian Development Bank and its Personnel fall under this
third category.

Same; Same; Same; The legal relationship between an ambassador and the state to which he is
accredited is entirely different from the relationship between the international official and those states
upon whose territory he might carry out his functions - the privileges and immunities of diplomats and
those of international officials rest upon different legal foundations. - There is a connection between
diplomatic privileges and immunities and those extended to international officials. The connection
consists in the granting, by contractual provisions, of the relatively well-established body of diplomatic
privileges and immunities to international functionaries. This connection is purely historical. Both types
of officials find the basis of their special status in the necessity of retaining functional independence and
freedom from interference by the state of residence. However, the legal relationship between an
ambassador and the state to which he is accredited is entirely different from the relationship between
the international official and those states upon whose territory he might carry out his functions. The
privileges and immunities of diplomats and those of international officials rest upon different legal
foundations. Whereas those immunities awarded to diplomatic agents are a right of the sending state
based on customary international law, those granted to international officials are based on treaty or
conventional law. Customary international law places no obligation on a state to recognize a special
status of an international official or to grant him jurisdictional immunities. Such an obligation can only
result from specific treaty provisions.

Same; Same; Same; The present tendency is to reduce privileges and immunities of personnel of
international organizations to a minimum. - Looking back over 150 years of privileges and immunities
granted to the personnel of international organizations, it is clear that they were accorded a wide scope
of protection in the exercise of their functions - The Rhine Treaty of 1804 between the German Empire
and France which provided “all the rights of neutrality” to persons employed in regulating navigation in
the international interest; The Treaty of Berlin of 1878 which granted the European Commission of the
Danube “complete independence of territorial authorities” in the exercise of its functions; The Covenant
of the League which granted “diplomatic immunities and privileges.” Today, the age of the United
Nations finds the scope of protection narrowed. The current tendency is to reduce privileges and
immunities of personnel of international organizations to a minimum. The tendency cannot be
considered as a lowering of the standard but rather as a recognition that the problem on the privileges
and immunities of international officials is new. The solution to the problem presented by the extension
of diplomatic prerogatives to international functionaries lies in the general reduction of the special
position of both types of agents in that the special status of each agent is granted in the interest of
function. The wide grant of diplomatic prerogatives was curtailed because of practical necessity and
because the proper functioning of the organization did not require such extensive immunity for its
officials. While the current direction of the law seems to be to narrow the prerogatives of the personnel
of international organizations, the reverse is true with respect to the prerogatives of the organizations
themselves, considered as legal entities. Historically, states have been more generous in granting
privileges and immunities to organizations than they have to the personnel of these organizations.

Same; Same; Same; There can be no dispute that international officials are entitled to immunity only
with respect to acts performed in their official capacity, unlike international organizations which enjoy
absolute immunity. - On the other hand, international officials are governed by a different rule. Section
18(a) of the General Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations states that officials
of the United Nations shall be immune from legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all
acts performed by them in their official capacity. The Convention on Specialized Agencies carries exactly
the same provision. The Charter of the ADB provides under Article 55(i) that officers and employees of
the bank shall be immune from legal process with respect to acts performed by them in their official
capacity except when the Bank waives immunity. Section 45 (a) of the ADB Headquarters Agreement
accords the same immunity to the officers and staff of the bank. There can be no dispute that
international officials are entitled to immunity only with respect to acts performed in their official
capacity, unlike international organizations which enjoy absolute immunity.
Same; Same; Same; The current status of the law does not maintain that states grant jurisdictional
immunity to international officials for acts of their private lives. - Section 18 (a) of the General
Convention has been interpreted to mean that officials of the specified categories are denied immunity
from local jurisdiction for acts of their private life and empowers local courts to assume jurisdiction in
such cases without the necessity of waiver. It has earlier been mentioned that historically, international
officials were granted diplomatic privileges and immunities and were thus considered immune for both
private and official acts. In practice, this wide grant of diplomatic prerogatives was curtailed because of
practical necessity and because the proper functioning of the organization did not require such
extensive immunity for its officials. Thus, the current status of the law does not maintain that states
grant jurisdictional immunity to international officials for acts of their private lives. This much is explicit
from the Charter and Headquarters Agreement of the ADB which contain substantially similar provisions
to that of the General Convention.

Same; Same; Same; The inclination is to place the competence to determine the nature of an act as
private or official in the courts of the state concerned. - It appears that the inclination is to place the
competence to determine the nature of an act as private or official in the courts of the state concerned.
That the prevalent notion seems to be to leave to the local courts determination of whether or not a
given act is official or private does not necessarily mean that such determination is final. If the United
Nations questions the decision of the Court, it may invoke proceedings for settlement of disputes
between the organization and the member states as provided in Section 30 of the General Convention.
Thus, the decision as to whether a given act is official or private is made by the national courts in the
first instance, but it may be subjected to review in the international level if questioned by the United
Nations.

Same; Same; Same; Asian Development Bank; Officials of international organizations enjoy “functional”
immunities, that is, only those necessary for the exercise of their functions of the organization and the
fulfillment of its purposes; Officials and employees of the Asian Development Bank are subject to the
jurisdiction of the local courts for their private acts, notwithstanding the absence of a waiver of
immunity. - Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, a diplomatic envoy is immune from
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State for all acts, whether private or official, and hence he cannot
be arrested, prosecuted and punished for any offense he may commit, unless his diplomatic immunity is
waived. On the other hand, officials of international organizations enjoy “functional” immunities, that is,
only those necessary for the exercise of the functions of the organization and the fulfillment of its
purposes. This is the reason why the ADB Charter and Headquarters Agreement explicitly grant
immunity from legal process to bank officers and employees only with respect to acts performed by
them in their official capacity, except when the Bank waives immunity. In other words, officials and
employees of the ADB are subject to the jurisdiction of the local courts for their private acts,
notwithstanding the absence of a waiver of immunity.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The immunity of the Asian Development Bank is absolute whereas the
immunity of its officials and employees is restricted only to official acts. - Petitioner cannot also seek
relief under the mantle of “immunity from every form of legal process” accorded to ADB as an
international organization. The immunity of ADB is absolute whereas the immunity of its officials and
employees is restricted only to official acts. This is in consonance with the current trend in international
law which seeks to narrow the scope of protection and reduce the privileges and immunities granted to
personnel of international organizations, while at the same time aims to increase the prerogatives of
international organizations.

Same; Same; Same; Same; The authority of the Department of Foreign Affairs, or even the Asian
Development Bank for that matter, to certify that the Bank’s officials and employees are entitled to
immunity is limited only to acts done in their official capacity. - Considering that bank officials and
employees are covered by immunity only for their official acts, the necessary inference is that the
authority of the Department of Affairs, or even of the ADB for that matter, to certify that they are
entitled to immunity is limited only to acts done in their official capacity. Stated otherwise, it is not
within the power of the DFA, as the agency in charge of the executive department’s foreign relations,
nor the ADB, as the international organization vested with the right to waive immunity, to invoke
immunity for private acts of bank officials and employees, since no such prerogative exists in the first
place. If the immunity does not exist, there is nothing to certify.

FACTS
 Petitioner is an economist working with the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Sometime in 1994,
for allegedly uttering defamatory words against fellow ADB worker Joyce Cabal, he was charged
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Mandaluyong City with two counts of grave oral
defamation.
 Petitioner was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the MeTC.
 After fixing petitioner's bail at P2,400.00 per criminal charge, the MeTC released him to the
custody of the Security Officer of ADB.
 The next day, the MeTC judge received an "office of protocol" from the Department of Foreign
Affairs (DFA) stating that petitioner is covered by immunity from legal process under Section 45
of the Agreement between the ADB and the Philippine Government regarding the Headquarters
of the ADB (hereinafter Agreement) in the country.
 Based on the said protocol communication that petitioner is immune from suit, the MeTC judge
without notice to the prosecution dismissed the two criminal cases.
 The latter filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the DFA.
 When its motion was denied, the prosecution filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City which set aside the MeTC rulings and ordered the
latter court to enforce the warrant of arrest it earlier issued.
 After the motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner elevated the case to this Court viaa
petition for review arguing that he is covered by immunity under the Agreement and that no
preliminary investigation was held before the criminal cases were filed in court.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner is covered by immunity under the agreement
 HELD
NO.

The petition is not impressed with merit.

Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is
covered by any immunity. The DFA's determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only
preliminary which has no binding effect in courts. dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to
the prosecution, the latter's right to due process was violated. It should be noted that due process is a
right of the accused as much as it is of the prosecution.

Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement because our laws do not
allow the commission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name of official duty.
It is well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for
whatever damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope
of his authority or jurisdiction.

On the contention that there was no preliminary investigation conducted, suffice it to say that
preliminary investigation is not a matter of right in cases cognizable by the MeTC such as the one at bar.
Being purely a statutory right, preliminary investigation may be invoked only when specifically granted
by law. he rule on the criminal procedure is clear that no preliminary investigation is required in cases
falling within the jurisdiction of the MeTC. Besides the absence of preliminary investigation does not
affect the court's jurisdiction nor does it impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it
defective.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

 [G.R. No. L-13005 October 10, 1917]

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
AH SING, defendant-appellant.

Antonio Sanz for appellant.

Acting Attorney-General Paredes for appellee.

Doctrines/Principles Involved

RPC, Art. 2

Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; chan robles virtual law library

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
of Book Two of this Code.

Constitution (1987), Art 1

NATIONAL TERRITORY. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.
Visiting Force Agreement, Art. V

Criminal Jurisdiction

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article:

(a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to
offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.

(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States
over United States personnel in the Philippines.

2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to
offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the
Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.

(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States Personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable
under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.

(c) For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this Article, an offense relating to security
means:

(1) treason;

(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.

3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply:

(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses
committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs 1 (b), 2 (b),
and 3 (b) of this Article.

(b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over
United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to:

(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses
solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and

(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.

(c) The authorities of either government may request the authorites of the other government to
waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.

(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good
order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United
 States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance
to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular
importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within
twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request.

(e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by
authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission
done in the performance of official duty, the commander shall issue a certificate setting forth
such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the
Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of
paragraph 3 (b) (2) of this Article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines
believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States
military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at
the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military
authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States
military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases,
and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken.

(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the
authorities of the other government as soon as possible.

(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the
disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States
have the right to exercise jurisdiction.

4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and United States shall
assist in each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over
to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or
detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction.
Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention
of any United States personnel.

6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall
immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of
the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon
formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to
those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which
the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its
position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall
take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year,
the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not
include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which
scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by
Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.
7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each
other in the carrying out of all necessary investigation into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for
the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in
proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense.

8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this Article and
have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had
their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same
offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military
authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the
act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities.

9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine
authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At
the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled:

(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;

(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and
to have reasonable time to prepare a defense;

(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses;

(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses;

(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as
nationals of the Philippines;

(f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;

(g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and
to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public
unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the
proceedings.

10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried
out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States
personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance.

11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction and
shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.
 JURISPRUDENCE

1. OPIUM LAW; ILLEGAL IMPORTATION, WHEN EXISTS. - Section 4, Act No. 2381 (the Opium Law)
construed as follows: Any person unlawfully imports or brings any prohibited drug into the
Philippine Islands when the prohibited drug is found under this person's control on a vessel
which has come direct from a foreign country and is within the jurisdictional limits of the
Philippine Islands. In such case, a person is guilty of illegal importation of the drug unless
contrary circumstances exist or the defense proves otherwise. United States vs. Look Chaw
([1910], Phil., 573), and United States vs. Jose ([1916], 34 Phil., 840), distinguished.
2.
2 ID: ID. - Defendant purchased opium in Saigon, brought it on ' 'board a foreign vessel, and had
it under his control when that vessel arrived after direct voyage in the port of Cebu. Held: To
constitute illegal importation of opium from a foreign country into the Philippine Islands.

FACTS

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu finding the defendant guilty of a
violation of section 4 of Act No. 2381 (the Opium Law), and sentencing him to two years imprisonment,
to pay a fine of P300 or to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

 The defendant is a subject of China employed as a fireman on the steamship Shun Chang.
 The Shun Chang is a foreign steamer which arrived at the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a
voyage direct from the port of Saigon.
 The defendant bought eight cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on board the
steamship Shun Chang, and had them in his possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu.
 When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, the authorities on making a
search found the eight cans of opium above mentioned hidden in the ashes below the boiler of
the steamer's engine.
 The defendant confessed that he was the owner of this opium, and that he had purchased it in
Saigon.
 He did not confess, however, as to his purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it was
his intention to import the prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands.
 Two decisions of this Court are cited in the judgment of the trial court, but with the intimation
that there exists inconsistently between the doctrines laid down in the two cases. However,
neither decision is directly a precedent on the facts before us.
 In the case of United States vs. Look Chaw in the opinion handed down by the Chief Justice, it is
found — That, although the mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these
Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule,
constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being
considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does no apply when the article,
whose use is prohibited within the Philippine Islands, in the present case a can of opium,
is landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the laws of
the land, with respect to which, as it is a violation of the penal law in force at the place of the
commission of the crime, only the court established in the said place itself has competent
jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.1awphil.net
 A marked difference between the facts in the Look Chaw case and the facts in the present
instance is readily observable. In the Look Chaw case, the charge case the illegal possession and
 sale of opium — in the present case the charge as illegal importation of opium; in the Look Chaw
case the foreign vessel was in transit — in the present case the foreign vessel was not in transit;
in the Look Chaw case the opium was landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil —in the
present case the opium was not landed by the defendant.
 In the case of United States vs. Jose the one on which resolution turned, was that in a
prosecution based on the illegal importation of opium or other prohibited drug, the
Government must prove, or offer evidence sufficient to raise a presumption, that the vessel
from which the drug is discharged came into Philippine waters from a foreign country with the
drug on board.
 In the Jose case, the defendants were acquitted because it was not proved that the opium was
imported from a foreign country; in the present case there is no question but what the opium
came from Saigon to Cebu.

ISSUE

Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands is criminally liable in
the Philippines.

HELD

Yes. It is criminally liable. As applied to the Opium Law, we expressly hold that any person unlawfully
imports or brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the prohibited drug is found
under this person’s control on a vessel which has come direct from a foreign country and is within the
jurisdictional limits of the Philippine Islands. No better explanation being possible, the logical deduction
is that the defendant intended this opium to be brought into the Philippine Islands. We accordingly find
that there was illegal importation of opium from a foreign country into the Philippine Islands. To
anticipate any possible misunderstanding, let it be said that these statements do not relate to foreign
vessels in transit, a situation not present.

The defendant and appellant, having been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged and the
sentence of the trial court being within the limits provided by law, it results that the judgment must be
affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellant.
 [G.R. No. L-1988 February 24, 1948]

JESUS MIQUIABAS, petitioner,

vs.
COMMANDING GENERAL, PHILIPPINE-RYUKYUS COMMAND, UNITED STATES ARMY, respondents.

Lorenzo Sumulong and Esteban P. Garcia for petitioner.

J. A. Wolfson for respondent.

Doctrines/Principle Included

RPC, Art. 2

Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application,
the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those
who:

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and
securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands; chan robles virtual law library

3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the presiding number;

4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions;
or

5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One
of Book Two of this Code.

Constitution (1987), Art 1

NATIONAL TERRITORY. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the
seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters around, between, and
connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the
internal waters of the Philippines.

Visiting Force Agreement, Art. V

Criminal Jurisdiction

1. Subject to the provisions of this Article:

 (a) Philippine authorities shall have jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to
offenses committed within the Philippines and punishable under the law of the Philippines.

(b) United States military authorities shall have the right to exercise within the Philippines all
criminal and disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on them by the military law of the United States
over United States personnel in the Philippines.

2. (a) Philippine authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States personnel with respect to
offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the Philippines, punishable under the laws of the
Philippines, but not under the laws of the United States.

(b) United States authorities exercise exclusive jurisdiction over United States Personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses relating to the security of the United States, punishable
under the laws of the United States, but not under the laws of the Philippines.

(c) For purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 3 of this Article, an offense relating to security
means:

(1) treason;

(2) sabotage, espionage or violation of any law relating to national defense.

3. In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent, the following rules shall apply:

(a) Philippine authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over all offenses
committed by United States personnel, except in cases provided for in paragraphs 1 (b), 2 (b),
and 3 (b) of this Article.

(b) United States military authorities shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over
United States personnel subject to the military law of the United States in relation to:

(1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States or offenses
solely against the property or person of United States personnel; and

(2) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in performance of official duty.

(c) The authorities of either government may request the authorites of the other government to
waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction in a particular case.

(d) Recognizing the responsibility of the United States military authorities to maintain good
order and discipline among their forces, Philippine authorities will, upon request by the United
States, waive their primary right to exercise jurisdiction except in cases of particular importance
to the Philippines. If the Government of the Philippines determines that the case is of particular
importance, it shall communicate such determination to the United States authorities within
twenty (20) days after the Philippine authorities receive the United States request.
 (e) When the United States military commander determines that an offense charged by
authorities of the Philippines against United States personnel arises out of an act or omission
done in the performance of official duty, the commander shall issue a certificate setting forth
such determination. This certificate will be transmitted to the appropriate authorities of the
Philippines and will constitute sufficient proof of performance of official duty for the purposes of
paragraph 3 (b) (2) of this Article. In those cases where the Government of the Philippines
believes the circumstances of the case require a review of the duty certificate, United States
military authorities and Philippine authorities shall consult immediately. Philippine authorities at
the highest levels may also present any information bearing on its validity. United States military
authorities shall take full account of the Philippine position. Where appropriate, United States
military authorities will take disciplinary or other action against offenders in official duty cases,
and notify the Government of the Philippines of the actions taken.

(f) If the government having the primary right does not exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the
authorities of the other government as soon as possible.

(g) The authorities of the Philippines and the United States shall notify each other of the
disposition of all cases in which both the authorities of the Philippines and the United States
have the right to exercise jurisdiction.

4. Within the scope of their legal competence, the authorities of the Philippines and United States shall
assist in each other in the arrest of United States personnel in the Philippines and in handing them over
to authorities who are to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

5. United States military authorities shall promptly notify Philippine authorities of the arrest or
detention of United States personnel who are subject to Philippine primary or exclusive jurisdiction.
Philippine authorities shall promptly notify United States military authorities of the arrest or detention
of any United States personnel.

6. The custody of any United States personnel over whom the Philippines is to exercise jurisdiction shall
immediately reside with United States military authorities, if they so request, from the commission of
the offense until completion of all judicial proceedings. United States military authorities shall, upon
formal notification by the Philippine authorities and without delay, make such personnel available to
those authorities in time for any investigative or judicial proceedings relating to the offense with which
the person has been charged. In extraordinary cases, the Philippine Government shall present its
position to the United States Government regarding custody, which the United States Government shall
take into full account. In the event Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year,
the United States shall be relieved of any obligations under this paragraph. The one year period will not
include the time necessary to appeal. Also, the one year period will not include any time during which
scheduled trial procedures are delayed because United States authorities, after timely notification by
Philippine authorities to arrange for the presence of the accused, fail to do so.

7. Within the scope of their legal authority, United States and Philippine authorities shall assist each
other in the carrying out of all necessary investigation into offenses and shall cooperate in providing for
the attendance of witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including seizure and, in
proper cases, the delivery of objects connected with an offense.
8. When United States personnel have been tried in accordance with the provisions of this Article and
have been acquitted or have been convicted and are serving, or have served their sentence, or have had
their sentence remitted or suspended, or have been pardoned, they may not be tried again for the same
offense in the Philippines. Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall prevent United States military
authorities from trying United States personnel for any violation of rules of discipline arising from the
act or omission which constituted an offense for which they were tried by Philippine authorities.

9. When United States personnel are detained, taken into custody, or prosecuted by Philippine
authorities, they shall be accorded all procedural safeguards established by the law of the Philippines. At
the minimum, United States personnel shall be entitled:

(a) To a prompt and speedy trial;

(b) To be informed in advance of trial of the specific charge or charges made against them and
to have reasonable time to prepare a defense;

(c) To be confronted with witnesses against them and to cross examine such witnesses;

(d) To present evidence in their defense and to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses;

(e) To have free and assisted legal representation of their own choice on the same basis as
nationals of the Philippines;

(f) To have the services of a competent interpreter;

(g) To communicate promptly with and to be visited regularly by United States authorities, and
to have such authorities present at all judicial proceedings. These proceedings shall be public
unless the court, in accordance with Philippine law, excludes persons who have no role in the
proceedings.

10. The confinement or detention by Philippine authorities of United States personnel shall be carried
out in facilities agreed on by appropriate Philippine and United States authorities. United States
personnel serving sentences in the Philippines shall have the right to visits and material assistance.

11. United States personnel shall be subject to trial only in Philippine courts of ordinary jurisdiction and
shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine military or religious courts.

JURISPRUDENCE

1. INTERNATIONAL LAW; JURISDICTION OF PHILIPPINES OVER ALL OFFENSES COMMITTED WlTHIN

ITS TERRITORY; JURISDICTION OF UNITED STATES OR OTHER FOREIGN NATIONS OVER CERTAIN
OFFENSES COMMITTED WlTHIN CERTAIN PORTIONS. - The Philippines, being a sovereign nation,
has jurisdiction over all offenses committed within its territory, but it may, by treaty or by
agreement, consent that the United States or any other foreign nation, shall exercise jurisdiction
over certain offenses committed within certain portions of said territory.
2. ID. ; ID. ; ID. ; AGREEMENT WITH UNITED STATES. - The agreement of March 14, 1947,
between the Republic of the Philippines and the Government of the United States concerning
military bases, enumerates in Article XIII the offenses over which the United States, by consent
of the Philippines, shall have the right to exercise jurisdiction.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; POET OF MANILA AREA NOT A BASE OF UNITED STATES. - The Port of Manila
Area is not one of the bases of the United States under the Agreement of March 14, 1947.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE NOT MEMBER OF ARMED FORCES OF UNITED
STATES. ·Under the terms of the Agreement of March 14, 1947, a civilian employee cannot be
considered as a member of the armed forces the United States.

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION, WHEN NOT WAIVABLE. - Respondent maintains that
petitioner has no cause of action because the Secretary of Justice had not notified the officer
holding the petitioner in custody whether or not the Philippines desired to retain jurisdiction
under Article XXI, paragraph 3, of the Military Base Agreement. It is sufficient to state that in
cases where the offender is a civilian employee and not a member of the United States armed
forces, no waiver can be made either by the prosecuting attorney or by the Secretary of Justice,
under paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article XIII in connection with paragraph 3 of Article XXI, of the
agreement.

6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. - Petitioner a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee
of the United States armed forces, allegedly committed an offense by disposing in the Port of
Manila Area of things belonging to the United States Army in violation of the 94th Article of War
of the United States. Held, That the General Court-Martial appointed by respondent has no
jurisdiction to try petitioner for the offense allegedly committed by him and, consequently, the
.judgment rendered by said court sentencing the petitioner to 15 years' imprisonment is null
and void for lack of jurisdiction.

ORIGINAL ACTION IN THE SUPREME COURT. HABEAS CORPUS.

FACTS

 Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee of the United States Army in the
Philippines, who has been charged with disposing in the Port of Manila Area of things
belonging to the United States Army, in violation of the 94th Article of War of the
United States.
 He has been arrested for that reason and a General Court-Martial appointed by
respondent tried and found him guilty and sentenced him to 15 years imprisonment.
 This sentence, however, is not yet final for it is still subject to review.
 As a rule, that the Philippines, being a sovereign nation, has jurisdiction over all offenses
committed within its territory, but it may, by treaty or by agreement, consent that the
 United States or any other foreign nation, shall exercise jurisdiction over certain
offenses committed within certain portions of said territory.

ISSUES

1. Whether or not the case has been committed within a US base thus giving US the jurisdiction
over the case.
2. Whether or not, the petitioner is a member of armed forces of the United States

HELD

1. Article XXVI of the Agreement provides that "bases are those area named in Annex A and Annex
B and such additional areas as may be acquired for military purposes pursuant to the terms of
this Agreement." Among the areas specified in Annexes A and B, there is none that has
reference to the Port Area of Manila where the offense has allegedly been committed. On the
contrary, it appears in Annex A that "army communications system" is included, but with "the
deletion of all stations in the Port of Manila Area."

Therefore, the offense at bar cannot be considered as committed within, but without, a base,
since it has been committed in the Port of Manila Area, which is not one of the bases mentioned
in Annexes A and B to the Agreement and is merely temporary quarters located within the
present limits of the City of Manila.

2. Under the terms of the Agreement, a civilian employee cannot be considered as a member of
the armed forces of the United States. Articles XI, XVI and XVIII of the Agreement make mention
of civilian employees separately from members of the armed forces of the United States, which
is a conclusive indication that under said Agreement armed forces do not include civilian
employees.

We are, therefore, of the opinion and so hold, that the General Court-Martial appointed by
respondent has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for the offense allegedly committed by him and,
consequently, the judgment rendered by said court sentencing the petitioner to 15 years'
imprisonment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction.

It is ordered that petitioner be released immediately by respondent without prejudice to any

criminal action which may be instituted in the proper court of the Philippines.
 [G.R. No. L-30026 January 30, 1971]

MARIO GUMABON, BLAS BAGOLBAGOL, GAUDENCIO AGAPITO, EPIFANIO PADUA and PATERNO
PALMARES, petitioners,
vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS, respondent.

Jose W. Diokno for petitioners.

Office of the Solicitor General Felix V. Makasiar, Assistant Solicitor General Antonio A. Torres and
Solicitor Eduardo C. Abaya for respondent.

Doctrines/Principles Included

RPC, Art. 21
Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law
prior to its commission.

RPC, Art. 22
Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of
this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced
and the convict is serving the same.

Civil Code, Art. 4

Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.

JURISPRUDENCE

Remedial law; Special proceedings; Habeas corpus; When habeas corpus proper. – Once a deprivation of
a constitutional right is shown to exist, the court that rendered the judgment is deemed ousted of
jurisdiction and habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to assail the legality of the detention.

Constitutional law; Equal protection of law; When applied at the case at bar. – What is required under
the equal protection of law is the uniform operation of legal norms so that all persons under similar
circumstances would be accorded the same treatment both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities
imposed.

ORIGINAL PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT. HABEAS CORPUS.

FACTS

 Petitioner Mario Gumabon, after pleading guilty, was sentenced on May 5, 1953 to
suffer reclusion perpetua for the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, robbery,
arson and kidnapping.
  Along with Agapito, Palmares and Padua The decision for the first two petitioners was rendered
on March 8, 1954 and the third on Dec. 5, 1955. The last petitioner Bagolbagol was penalized
with reclusion perpetua on Jan. 12, 1954. Each of the petitioners have been imprisoned for
more than 13 years by virtue of their convictions.
 Each of them has served more than 13 years.
 Subsequently, in People v. Hernandez, this Court ruled that the information against the accused
in that case for rebellion complexed with murder, arson and robbery was not warranted under
Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, there being no such complex offense.
 Hernandez was only entitled to 10 years imprisonment and was thus entitled to freedom, his
continued detention being illegal.
 Petitioners seeks for retroactivity application of Hernandez’s doctrine

ISSUE

Whether or not Art. 22 of the RPC which gives a penal judgment a retroactive effect is applicable in this
case

HELD
Yes.
Petitioners properly invoked in their favor the provisions of Article 22 of the RPC - Retroactive effect of
penal laws.—Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony,
who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in rule 5 of article 62 of this Code, although at the
time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the
same.

Prescinding then from the question of jurisdiction of the sentencing courts, the case at bar presents a
clear case of an excess in penalty imposed beyond twelve years of prision mayor which has become
illegal by virtue of this Court's settled doctrine that the crime of rebellion cannot be complexed with
other common crimes. On this ground, as well as on the further and more fundamental ground that to
hold them liable to continue serving life sentences for a crime that the law—at the time of their
conviction as well as now—punishes only with prision mayor which they have more than fully served,
would be to deny them their constitutional rights of due process and equal protection of the law.

Any further detention of petitioners, in my view as above discussed, is illegal and unconstitutional and
the petition for habeas corpus should be granted and petitioners forthwith set at liberty.