Art. 2. Application of its provisions.

— E x c e p t as p r o v i d e
d i n th e t r e a t i e s an d l a w s o f p r e f e r e n t i a l a p p l i c a t i o n , th e
p r o v i s i o n s o f thi s Cod e sha l l b e e n f o r c e d no t onl y w i t h i n th e
P h i l i p p i n e A r c h i p e l a g o , i n c l u d i n g it s a t m o s p h e r e , its in t e r i o r
w a t e r s an d m a r i t i m e z o ne , bu t als o o u t s i d e o f it s j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
a g a i n s t th os e wh o :

S h o u l d c o m m i t an o ff e ns e w h i l e on a P h i l i p p i n e shi
p o r a i r sh i p ;
2 . S h o u l d forg e o r c o u n t e r f e i t an y co i n o r c u r r e n c y
no t e o f th e P h i l i p p i n e I s l a n d s o r o b l i g a t i o n s
an d s e c u r i t i e s i s s u e d b y th e G o v e r n m e n t o f th e
P h i l i p p i n e I s l an d s ;
3 . S h o u l d b e l i a b l e fo r a c t s c o n n e c t e d w i t h th e
i n t r o d u c t i o n int o t h e s e Is la nd s o f t h e o b l i g a t i o n s an d
s e c u r i t i e s m e n t i o n e d i n th e p r e c e d i n g nu m b e r ;
4. While b e i n g pub lic officers or e m p l o y e e s , s ho ul d com•
mi t a n o ff e ns e i n th e e x e r c i s e o f thei r f u n ct io ns ; o r

1
 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Art. 2

5 . S h o u l d c o m m i t an y o f th e c r i m e s a g a i n s t n a t i o n a l
s e c u r i t y an d th e la w o f n a t i o n s , de f in e d i n Title On
e o f B o o k Tw o o f thi s Cod e .

Scope of the application of the provisions of the Revised

Penal Code.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced not
only within the Philippine Archipelago, but also outside of its juris•
diction in certain

The five paragraphs of Art. 2 treat of the application of the

Revised Penal Code to acts committed in the air, at sea, and even in
a foreign country when such acts affect the political or economic life
of the nation.

In what cases are the provisions of the Revised Penal Code

applicable even if the felony is committed outside of the
Philippines?
They are applicable in the following cases:

1. When the offender should commit an offense while on a

Philippine ship or airship.
The Philippine vessel, although beyond three miles from
the seashore, is considered part of the national territory.
Thus, any person who committed a crime on board a
Philippine ship or airship while the same is outside of the
Philippine territory can be tried before our civil courts for
violation of the Penal Code.
But when the Philippine vessel or aircraft is in the territory
of a foreign country, the crime committed on said vessel or
aircraft is subject to the laws of that foreign country.
A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that
which is registered in the Philippine Bureau of Customs.
It is the registration of the vessel or aircraft in accordance
with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of its owner,
which makes it a Philippine ship or airship. A vessel or aircraft

2
Art. 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS

which is unregistered or unlicensed does not come within the

purview of paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2.
Thus, if a crime is committed ten miles from the shores
of the Philippines on board a vessel belonging to a Filipino,
but the same is not registered or licensed in accordance with
the laws of the Philippines, paragraph No. 1 of Art. 2 is not
applicable.
The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime of
theft committed on the high seas on board a vessel not registered
or licensed in the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)
2. When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin
or currency note of the Philippines or obligations and
securities issued by the Government.
Thus, any person who makes false or counterfeit coins
(Art. 163) or forges treasury or bank notes or other obligations
and securities (Art. 166) in a foreign country may be prosecuted
before our civil courts for violation of Art. or Art. 166 of the
Revised Penal Code.
When the offender should be liable for acts connected with
the introduction into the Philippines of the obligations and
securities mentioned in the preceding number.
The reason for this provision is that the introduction
of forged or counterfeited obligations and securities into the
Philippines is as dangerous as the forging or counterfeiting of
the same, to the economical interest of the country.

4. When the offender, while being a public officer or employee,

should commit an offense in the exercise of his functions.
The crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public
functions are direct bribery (Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art.
frauds against the public treasury (Art. 213), possession
of prohibited interest (Art. 216), malversation of public funds
or property (Art. 217), failure of accountable officer to render
accounts (Art. 218), illegal use of public funds or property (Art.
220), failure to make delivery of public funds or property (Art.
and falsification by a public officer or employee committed
with abuse of his official position. (Art. 171)

3
 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Art. 2

When any of these felonies is committed abroad by any

of our public officers or employees while in the exercise of his
he can be prosecuted here.

When the offender should commit any of the crimes against

the national security and the law of nations.
The crimes against the national security and the law of
nations are treason (Art. conspiracy and proposal to commit
treason (Art. 115), espionage (Art. 117), inciting to war and
giving motives for reprisals (Art. violation of neutrality
(Art. correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120), flight
to country (Art. 121), and piracy and mutiny on the high
seas. (Art. 122)

The crimes punishable in the Philippines under Art. 2 are

cognizable by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge
is
The crimes committed outside of the Philippines but punishable
therein under Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code shall be cognizable
by the Regional Trial Court in which the charge is first filed. (Rule
110, Sec. 15[d], Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
Regional Trial Courts (formerly have original jurisdic•
tion over all crimes and offenses commited on the high seas or
beyond the jurisdiction of any country on board a ship or warcraft
of any kind registered or licensed in the Philippines in accord•
ance with its laws. (Sec. 44[g], Judiciary Act of 1948 , Rep. Act
No. 296 )

IMPORTANT WORDS AND PHRASES IN ART. 2

1. "Except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential
application."
This phrase means that while the general rule is that
the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be enforced
against any person who violates any of its provisions while
living or sojourning in the Philippines, the exceptions
to that rule may be provided by the treaties and laws of
preferential applications, like the RP-US Visiting Forces
Accord, the Military Bases Agreement between the Republic

27
Art. 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS

of the Philippines and the United States of America, and

the provisions of Rep. Act No. 75.
2. "its atmosphere."
The sovereignty of the and therefore
its penal laws extend to all the air space which covers its
territory, subject to the right of way or easement in favor
of foreign aircrafts.
3. "interior waters."
The phrase "interior waters" includes creeks, rivers,
lakes and bays, gulfs, straits, coves, inlets and roadsteads
lying wholly within the three-mile limit.
4. "maritime zone."
The States by means of treaties have fixed its length
to three miles from the coastline, starting from the low
water mark.
It includes those parts of the sea
or recesses in the coastline whose width at their entrance
is not more than twelve miles measured in a straight line
from headland to headland, and all straits less than six
miles wide.
For those straits having more than that width, the
space in the center outside of the marine league limits is
considered as open sea. (Opinion of Attorney General, Jan.

Crimes committed on board foreign merchant ship or airship.

Just as our merchant ship is an extension of our territory,
foreign merchant ship is considered an extension of the territory of
the country to which it belongs. For this reason, an offense commited
on the high seas on board a foreign merchant vessel is not triable by
our courts. (U.S. vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)

Continuing offense on board a foreign vessel.

But a continuing crime committed on board a Norwegian
merchant vessel sailing from Formosa to the Philippines, by failing

28
 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Art. 2

to provide stalls for animals in transit in violation of Act No. 55, is

triable in the Philippines.
The offense of failing to provide suitable means for securing
animals while transporting them on a (foreign) ship from a foreign
port to a port of the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts
of the Philippines when the forbidden conditions existed during the
time the ship was within territorial waters, regardless of the fact that
the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign
port and while it was on the high seas. (U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7)

Offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while

on Philippine waters is triable before our court.
Since the Philippine territory extends to three miles from the
headlands, when a foreign merchant vessel enters this three-mile limit,
the ship's officers and crew become subject to the jurisdiction of our
courts. The space within 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlands
which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay is within territorial
(U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7, 17-18)

Rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign

merchant vessels.
There are two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed
aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another
country.
French Rule. — Such crimes are not triable in the courts of that
country, unless their commission affects the peace and security of the
territory or the safety of the state is endangered.
English Rule. — Such crimes are triable in that country, unless
they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal
management thereof.
In this country, we observe the English Rule.
According to the French theory and matters happening
on board a merchant ship which do not concern the tranquility of the
port or persons foreign to the crew, are justiceable only by the courts of
the country to which the vessel belongs. The French courts therefore
claim exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board French
merchant vessels in foreign ports by one member of the crew against

29
Art. 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS

another. Such jurisdiction has never been admitted or claimed by

Great Britain as a right, although she has frequently conceded it by
treaties. (U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7, 14)

Do the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of

homicide committed on board a foreign merchant vessel by
a member of the crew against another?
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on
board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of
the ship, but those which disturb the public peace may be suppressed,
and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper authorities of
the local jurisdiction.
It may not be easy at all times to determine to which of the
two jurisdictions a particular act of disorder belongs. Much will
undoubtedly depend on the attending circumstances of the particular
case, but all must concede that felonious homicide is a subject for the
local jurisdiction, and that if the proper authorities are proceeding
with the case in the regular way, the consul has no right to interfere
to prevent it. (Mali and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of the Common Jail,
120 U.S. 1, cited in People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 731-732)

Crimes not involving a breach of public order committed

on board a foreign merchant vessel in transit not triable by
our courts.
Mere possession of opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel in
transit is not triable in Philippine courts, because that fact alone
does not constitute a breach of public order. The reason for this
ruling is that mere possession of opium on such a ship, without
being used in our territory, does not bring about in this country
those disastrous effects that our law contemplates avoiding. But
said courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are landed
from the vessel on Philippine soil. Landing or using opium is an
open violation of the laws of the Philippines. (U.S. vs. Look Chaw,
18 Phil. 573 , 577-578)
When the foreign merchant vessel is not in transit because the
Philippines is its terminal port, the person in possession of opium on
board that vessel is liable, because he may be held guilty of illegal
importation of opium. (U.S. vs. Ah Sing, 36 Phil. 978, 981-982)

30
 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS Art. 2

Smoking opium constitutes a breach of public order.

Smoking opium aboard an English vessel while anchored two
and one-half miles in Manila Bay constitutes a breach of public order,
because the primary object of the law in punishing the use of opium
is to protect the inhabitants of this country against the disastrous
effects entailed by the use of such drug. And to smoke opium within
our territorial limits, even though aboard a foreign merchant ship,
is certainly a breach of the public order here established, because it
causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory.
Philippine courts have jurisdiction over crimes constituting a breach
of public order aboard merchant vessels anchored in Philippine
jurisdictional waters. (People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729, 733)

Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over offenses

committed on board foreign warships in territorial waters.
In case vessels are in the ports or territorial waters of a foreign
country, a distinction must be made between merchant ships and
warships; the former are more or less subjected to the territorial
(See U.S. vs. Bull, 15 Phil. 7; U.S. vs. Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573; and
People vs. Wong Cheng, 46 Phil. 729)

Warships are always reputed to be the territory of the country

to which they belong and cannot be subjected to the laws of another
state. A United States Army transport is considered a warship. (U.S.
vs. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614)

Extra-territorial application of Republic Act No. 9372.

Rep. Act No. 9372, otherwise known as the "Human Security
Act of 2007" which was passed into law on 6 March 2007 has
territorial application.
Section 58 of Rep. Act No. 9372 provides that subject to the
provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory
and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application,
the provisions of the Act shall apply:
(1) to individual persons who commit any of the crimes
defined and punished in the Act within the terrestrial
domain, interior waters, maritime zone and airspace of
the Philippines;

31
Art. 2 APPLICATION OF ITS PROVISIONS

32
 (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

33
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit, conspire of plot any of the crimes and punished in the Act inside the
territorial limits of the
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines,
commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or airship;
to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate or
diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official
capacity;
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent,
where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and
to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.

34