St.

Mary’s College of Law

Criminal Law 1 Review
August 14, 2021

MELANIE R. BOISER
Case Digest Assignments

I. Laude vs Pemberton GR No. 217456 Nov. 24, 2015

Facts:
On October 11, 2014, Jeffrey "Jennifer" Laude (Jennifer) was killed at the Celzone Lodge on
Ramon Magsaysay Drive in Olongapo City allegedly by 19-year-old US Marine L/CPL Joseph
Scott Pemberton (Pemberton).2 On October 15, 2014, a Complaint for murder was filed by
Jennifer's sibling, Marilou S. Laude, against Pemberton. A warrant of arrest against Pemberton
was issued.
Petitioners argue that the custody of Pemberton must be ordered transferred to the Olongapo
City Jail, considering that the crime involved is murder, which is non-bailable. 41 They aver that it
is unconstitutional to refuse to put him "in the custody of Philippine jail authorities[,]" as such
refusal "undermines the Constitutional Powers of [the Court] to hear a jurisdictional matter
brought before it"42 and to promulgate rules for the practice of law. 43 Petitioners argue that
even though the Visiting Forces Agreement gives the United States the "sole discretion" to
decide whether to surrender custody of an accused American military personnel to the
Philippine authorities, "the rule is that . . . the Court [still] has control over any proceeding
involving a jurisdictional matter brought before it, even if it may well involve the country's
relations with another foreign power.
Issue:
Whether or not the VFA provision which affects the criminal jurisdiction over the person of
Pemberton is unconstitutional because it impairs the power of the Supreme Court?

Ruling:
No. The VFA being a valid and binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of
international law to abide by its terms and provisions.
The rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed to enter one's territory is
immune from local jurisdiction, except to the extent agreed upon. The Status of Forces
Agreements involving foreign military units around the world vary in terms and conditions,
according to the situation of the parties involved, and reflect their bargaining power. But the
principle remains, i.e., the receiving State can exercise jurisdiction over the forces of the
sending State only to the extent agreed upon by the parties.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits such agreements recognizing immunity from jurisdiction
or some aspects of jurisdiction (such as custody), in relation to long-recognized subjects of such
immunity like Heads of State, diplomats and members of the armed forces contingents of a
foreign State allowed to enter another State's territory. On the contrary, the Constitution states
that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the
law of the land. (Art. II, Sec. 2).

II. Shauf vs Court of Appeals GR No. 90314 Nov. 27, 1990

Facts:
Petitioner Loida Q. Shauf, a Filipino by origin and married to an American who is a member of
the United States Air Force, applied for the vacant position of Guidance Counselor, GS17109, in
the Base Education Office at Clark Air Base, for which she is eminently qualified. Plaintiff Loida
Q. Shauf twice applied for the position of Guidance Counselor sometime in 1975 and in October
1978. Although she was qualified for the postision, her appointment was rejected ny the
defendant Detwiler. The two who were appointed, a certain Petrucci and Edward B. Isakson,
were ordered removed by the U.S. Civil Service Commission. Instead of replacing Petrucci with
the plaintiff Loida Q. Shauf, the defendant Detwiler had the position vacated by Petrucci
abolished. And in the case of Edward Isakson, the defendant Detwiler ignored the order of the
U.S. Civil Service Commission to have him removed according to the testimony of plaintiff Loida
Q. Shauf.
Defendants advance an argument that as officers/officials of the United States Armed Forces,
are immune from suit for acts done or statements made by them in the performance of their
official governmental functions in accordance with the powers possessed by them under the
Philippine-American Military Bases Agreement of 1947
Issue:
Whether or not defendants being an officers of US Armed Forces are immune from suit?
Ruling:

No. The cloak of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the
moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation usually arises where the public
official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested in him. It is a 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 and in bad faith, or beyond the scope
of his authority or jurisdiction.25

The agents and officials of the United States armed forces stationed in Clark Air Base are no
exception to this rule.

It bears stressing at this point that the above observation does not confer on the United States
of America blanket immunity for all acts done by it or its agents in the Philippines. Neither may
the other petitioners claim that they are also insulated from suit in this country merely because
they have acted as agents of the United States in the discharge of their official functions.

III. Schneckeburger vs Moran GR No. L-44896 July 31, 1936

Facts:

The petitioner was duly accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila, Philippine Islands on
June 11, 1934. He was subsequently charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the
crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the
ground that both under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
Philippines the phil. Court had no jurisdiction to try him.

Issue:

Whether or not the Phil. Court has jurisdiction over the person of Petitioner?

Ruling:

Yes. It is well settled that a consul is not entitled to the privileges and immunities of an
ambassador or minister, but is subject to the laws and regulations of the country to which he is
accredited. (Ex parte Baiz, 135 U. S., 403; 34 Law. ed., 222.) A consul is not exempt from
criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of the country where he resides. 
 IV. De Tavera vs Valdez GR No. L-922 Nov. 8, 1902

Facts:

The defendant was in September, 1901, the editor of "Miau," a periodical published and
circulated in Manila, and that an article containing the alleged injurious matter was published in
the issue of that periodical of September 15, 1901. The article is couched throughout in grossly
abusive language, and in terms not capable of being misunderstood. The article contains other
statements and imputations of a derogatory character, but we base our opinion upon that
portion to which reference has been made. Injurias graves are classified by article 457 of the
Penal Code. During the Pendency of the Case Act 277 of the United States Commission defined
the law of “libel” and repealing Art. 457 of the Penal Code. The penalty imposed in Act 277 is
more favorable to the accused.

Issue:

Whether or not the penalty to be imposed is based on former law Art. 457 of the Penal Code
and not subsequent law Act 277?

Ruling:

Yes. Since the proviso in the section of Act No. 277, cited, by virtue of which the previously
existing law on the subject covered by the act is left intact in all its parts as respects pending
actions or existing causes of action. The language is general and embraces, we think, all actions,
whether civil, criminal, or of a mixed character. In this view of the case we have no occasion to
consider the question argued by counsel for the private prosecutor as to whether the
provisions of Act No. 277 respecting the penalty are more favorable to the accused than those
of the former law or otherwise. The punishment must be determined exclusively by the
provisions of the former law.

V. People vs Panaligan C.A. 40 OG 207

Facts:
On the afternoon of February 19, 1920, these person, the deceased and the accused, who are
also cart drivers, were seen driving their respective carts, harnessed to carabaos and an ox.
Between 8 and 9 o’clock in the same morning the dead body of Ambrosio Anchoris (Arit-it) was
found in the barrio of Putol, municipality of Tuy, Province of Batangas with sixteen wounds,
which are described in Exhibit A. According to the sanitary inspector, who examined the corpse,
death must have occurred about six hours before, that is between 2 and 3 o’clock in the
morning. A complaint having been filed against the herein accused.
Issue:
Whether or not an Accused who was not included in the first information filed but was used as
a witness bars his trial and conviction?
Ruling:
No. The fact that this accused testified as a government witness at the preliminary investigation
is not a bar to his prosecution and subsequent conviction. Notwithstanding that he was
excluded from the information (which is not a fact) and used as a state’s witness at the
preliminary investigation at the request of the prosecuting attorney. This is not an obstacle to
his being tried and convicted.

VI. People vs Pegarum (Prospr

Facts:
On February 6, 1932, a complaint was filed in the justice of the peace court of Baguio, Mountain
Province, wherein the appellant was charged with having committed, on December 28, 1931, a
crime of estafa, on March 1, 1932. When the case was called for trial, the attorney for the
defendant raised the question of the jurisdiction of the court to try it, contending that it was
originally cognizable by the justice of the peace of the City of Baguio. The Court ruled that it had
jurisdiction to try the case in accordance with section 366 of the Revised Penal Code, and
proceeded with the trial. Thereafter, the defendant was found guilty of the crime charged in
the information
Issue:
whether the jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to be determined by the law in
force at the time of the commission of the crime, or by that in force at the time of instituting
the action?
Ruling:
As a general rule the jurisdiction of a court depends upon the state of the facts existing at the
time it is invoked, and if the jurisdiction once attaches to the person and subject matter of the
litigation, the subsequent happening of events, although they are of such a character as would
have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to oust
jurisdiction already attached."
By reason of the penalty which might be imposed, jurisdiction to try the case was already
vested in the justice of the peace. Hence, the Court of First Instance acted beyond its
jurisdiction in trying the case.