CRIMINAL LAW 1

GROUP CASE DIGEST

Magallona, et. al. vs. Ermita, et. al., G.R No.187167, August 16, 2011);
Philippines vs China

Territoriality- AAA vs BBB G.R No.212448, January 11, 2018

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs Armando Gemoya, and Ronilo

Tionko, Accused-Appelant. (G.R. No.132633, October 4, 2000

MEMBERS:
1.STELLA S. MARIANITO
2.KHU KATE T. BATOON
3.THESSA JANE ESCUADRO
4.JOY A. SALVACION
5.CIELO MARRIZ ARROYO
6.KEZIAH LAID
7.FARHAJID LANGAR
8.EPGEE M. NALDOZA
9.RICO MACALANGAN
10.CHERILYN DACAL
11.AILYN TUAL
12.VINCE ALBAñO
13.RHENT JAY CEñO
14.DIXIS TAMIN
15.ANTONIO DE ATA JR.
16.FAT’MA MAMA
17.JEFEY PALMA
FIRST CASE:

PROF.MERLIN M. MAGALLONA, et. Al vs. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA IN HIS

CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, et., al.
G.R. No.187167, 16 July 2011, EN BANC (Carpio, J.)

Petitioner: Prof. Magallona, Hontiveros, Prof. Roque and 38 UP College of Law Students

Respondents: HON. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, HON. ROMULO, IN

HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DFA, HON. ANDAYA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DBM,
HON. VENTURA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL MAPPING &
RESOURCE INFORMATION AUTHORITY, and HON. DAVIDE, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES TO THE
UNITED NATIONS

Ponente: Caprio, J.

The Case
This original action for the writs of certiorari and prohibition assails the constitutionality of
Republic Act No. 95221(RA 9522) adjusting the country’s archipelagic baselines and classifying
the baseline regime of nearby territories.

Facts:

RA 3046 was passed in 1961 which provides among others the demarcation lines of the
baselines of the Philippines as an archipelago. This is in consonance with UNCLOS I.

RA 5446 amended RA 3046 in terms of typographical errors and included Section 2 in

which the government reserved the drawing of baselines in Sabah in North Borneo.

RA 9522 took effect on March 2009 amending RA 5446. The amendments, which are in
compliance with UNCLOS III in which the Philippines is one of the signatory, shortening
one baseline while optimizing the other and classifying Kalayaan Group of Island and
Scarborough Shoal as Regimes of Island.

Petitioners in their capacity as taxpayer, citizen and legislator assailed the

constitutionality of RA 9522:- it reduces the territory of the Philippines in violation to the
Constitution and it opens the country to maritime passage of vessels and aircrafts of
other states to the detriment of the economy, sovereignty, national security and of the
Constitution as well. They added that the classification of Regime of Islands would be
prejudicial to the lives of the fishermen.
Issues:

1. Whether the petitioners posses locus standi to bring the suit; and
2. whether RA 9522 is unconstitutional

Ruling:

Petition is dismissed.

1st Issue:
The SC ruled the suit is not a taxpayer or legislator, but as a citizen suit, since it is the
citizens who will be directly injured and benefitted in affording relief over the remedy
sought.

2nd Issue:
The SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 9522.

First, RA 9522 did not delineate the territory the Philippines but is merely a statutory tool
to demarcate the country’s maritime zone and continental shelf under UNCLOS III. SC
emphasized that UNCLOS III is not a mode of acquiring or losing a territory as provided
under the laws of nations. UNCLOS III is a multi-lateral treaty that is a result of a long-
time negotiation to establish a uniform sea-use rights over maritime zones (i.e., the
territorial waters [12 nautical miles from the baselines], contiguous zone [24 nautical
miles from the baselines], exclusive economic zone [200 nautical miles from the
baselines]), and continental shelves. In order to measure said distances, it is a must for
the state parties to have their archipelagic doctrines measured in accordance to the
treaty—the role played by RA 9522. The contention of the petitioner that RA 9522
resulted to the loss of 15,000 square nautical miles is devoid of merit. The truth is, RA
9522, by optimizing the location of base points, increased the Philippines total maritime
space of 145,216 square nautical miles.

Second, the classification of KGI and Scarborough Shoal as Regime of Islands is

consistent with the Philippines’ sovereignty. Had RA 9522 enclosed the islands as part
of the archipelago, the country will be violating UNCLOS III since it categorically stated
that the length of the baseline shall not exceed 125 nautical miles. So what the
legislators did is to carefully analyze the situation: the country, for decades, had been
claiming sovereignty over KGI and Scarborough Shoal on one hand and on the other
hand they had to consider that these are located at non-appreciable distance from the
nearest shoreline of the Philippine archipelago. So, the classification is in accordance
with the Philippines sovereignty and State’s responsible observance of its pacta sunt
servanda obligation under UNCLOS III.

Third, the new base line introduced by RA 9522 is without prejudice with delineation of
the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North
Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and
sovereignty.

And lastly, the UNCLOS III and RA 9522 are not incompatible with the Constitution’s
delineation of internal waters. Petitioners contend that RA 9522 transformed the internal
waters of the Philippines to archipelagic waters hence subjecting these waters to the
right of innocent and sea lanes passages, exposing the Philippine internal waters to
nuclear and maritime pollution hazards. The Court emphasized that the Philippines
exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of the baselines, including
the air space over it and the submarine areas underneath, regardless whether internal
or archipelagic waters. However, sovereignty will not bar the Philippines to comply with
its obligation in maintaining freedom of navigation and the generally accepted principles
of international law. It can be either passed by legislator as a municipal law or in the
absence thereof, it is deemed incorporated in the Philippines law since the right of
innocent passage is a customary international law, thus automatically incorporated
thereto.

This does not mean that the states are placed in a lesser footing; it just signifies
concession of archipelagic states in exchange for their right to claim all waters inside
the baseline. In fact, the demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit
its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the exploitation of all
living and non-living resources within such zone. Such a maritime delineation binds the
international community since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If
the maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international community will of
course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.

The Court expressed that it is within the Congress who has the prerogative to determine
the passing of a law and not the Court. Moreover, such enactment was necessary in
order to comply with the UNCLOS III; otherwise, it shall backfire on the Philippines for
its territory shall be open to seafaring powers to freely enter and exploit the resources in
the waters and submarine areas around our archipelago and it will weaken the country’s
case in any international dispute over Philippine maritime space.

The enactment of UNCLOS III compliant baselines law for the Philippine archipelago
and adjacent areas, as embodied in RA 9522, allows an internationally-recognized
delimitation of the breadth of the Philippines’ maritime zones and continental shelf. RA
9522 is therefore a most vital step on the part of the Philippines in safeguarding its
maritime zones, consistent with the Constitution and our national interest.
SECOND CASE:

AAA v. BBB, GR No. 212448, 2018-01-11

Facts:

*AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. Their union produced
two children: CCC was born on March 4, 2007 and DDD on October 1, 2009.

*BBB started working in Singapore as a chef, where he acquired permanent resident

status

*BBB sent little to no financial support, compelled AAA to fly extra hours and take on
additional jobs to augment her income as a flight attendant.

*There were also allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their son
CCC, and physical and sexual violence.

*To make matters worse, BBB supposedly started having an affair with a Singaporean
woman named Lisel Mok with whom he allegedly has been living in Singapore.

*AAA and BBB had a violent altercation at a hotel room in Singapore during her visit with
their kids.

*The Information having been filed, a warrant of arrest was issued against BBB. AAA was
also able to secure a Hold-Departure Order against BBB who continued to evade the
warrant of arrest.

Issues:

Whether or not Philippine courts are deprived of territorial jurisdiction over a criminal
charge of psychological abuse under R.A. No. 9262 when committed through marital
infidelity and the alleged illicit relationship took place outside the Philippines.

Ruling:

Physical violence is only the most visible form of abuse. Psychological abuse, particularly
forced social and economic isolation of women, is also common. In this regard, Section
3 of R.A. No. 9262 made it a point to encompass in a non-limiting manner the various
forms of violence that may be committed against women and their children... what R.A.
No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se but the psychological violence
causing mental or emotional suffering on the wife.
 Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only one of the various acts by which psychological
violence may be committed... the mental or emotional suffering of the victim is an
essential and distinct element in the commission of the offense.

Section 7 of R.A. No. 9262 is that the law contemplates that acts of violence against
women and their children may manifest as transitory or continuing crimes

We say that even if the alleged extra marital affair causing the offended wife mental and
emotional anguish is committed abroad, the same does not place a prosecution under
R.A. No. 9262 absolutely beyond the reach of Philippine courts.

The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action
but is an essential element of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court over the criminal case
is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information. And once it is so shown,
the court may validly take cognizance of the case. However, if the evidence adduced
during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should
dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction.

THIRD CASE:

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ARMANDO GEMOYA AND RONILO TIONKO,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT
G.R. No.132633, October 04,2000

Regional Trial Court in Davao City (Branch 15)

The Facts:
The neighborhood of Barrio Malagamot, Panacan, DavaoCity were awakened by a
commotion. Armando Gemoya and Candelario Aliazar, together with their relatives,Ronilo
and Rolly Tionko, went towards the house of Irene Lantapon. They were armed with pipe,
wood, and and improvised bow and arrow locally called “Indian Pana”.
Addressing a group of people who were huddled together, Ronilo stopped and
demanded an explanation for what happened to his brother-in-law. They replied that
nothing happened to him and advised them to go home. Ronilo ignored them and the four
went to the house of the Alferezes. They saw Wilfredo Alferez standing by the road
waiting for a taxi. The four rushed at him. Ronilo beat him with a cylindrical wood, Rolly
with a pipe, while Candelario held his arms behind him. Armando aimed his “Indian pana”
at Wilfredo and the latter was hit on his left chest.
Edgardo and his daughter, Rosalie Jimenez rushed to his aid. But Rosalie was hit on the
left ear by Armando. Then the four ran away. Wilfredo was brought to the hospital but he
died upon arrival. Rosalie, on the other hand, was declared out of danger. The RTC found
Armando and Ronilo guilty of murder and frustrated homicide.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting Armando and Ronilo of the crime of frustrated
homicide for the wounding of Jimenez??? -- YES
RULING:
The hitting of Rosalie was accidental as the
second “Indian pana” was meant for Wilfredo. The intent to kill Rosalie is absent.
However, they are still liable for the consequences of their felonious act.
Mistake in the identity of the victim, which may either be “error inpersonae”
(mistake of the person), or “aberratio ictus” (mistake in the blow), is neither
exempting nor mitigating. They cannot therefore escape the criminal liability
resulting from the injury suffered by Rosalie.
NOTE:
Gemoya is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.