iii. Extraterritorial

Exception/s:

• Where the offense was committed under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the offense is cognizable before Philippine courts even if committed outside of the territory of the Philippines.

Note: Article 2 of the RPC includes offenders who (SCION)

• Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship;
• 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;
• Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities mentioned above.
• While being public officers and employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; orShould commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations.

Crimes against national security include treason, conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, misprision of treason, espionage, inciting to war and giving motives for reprisal, violation of neutrality, correspondence with hostile country and flight to enemy’s country. Crimes against laws of nations are piracy and mutiny.

• Where an offense is committed on a railroad train, in an aircraft, or in any other public or private vehicle while in the course of its trip, the criminal action may be instituted and tried in the court of any municipality or territory where such train, aircraft or other vehicle passed during such trip, including the place of departure and arrival [Rule 110, Sec. 15 (b)].
• Where an offense is committed on board a vessel in the course of its voyage, the criminal action may be instituted and tried in the proper court of the first port of entry or of any municipality or territory through which the vessel passed during such voyage subject to the generally accepted principles of international law [Rule 110, Sec. 15 (c)].
• In those cases where the Supreme Court, in the interest of truth and impartial justice and pursuant to its constitutional powers, transfers the place of trial from one place to another.
• Where the case is cognizable by the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction depends upon the nature of the offense and the position of the accused. The offense need not be tried in the place where the act was committed but where the court actually sits.

Note: When the greater convenience of the accused and of the witnesses, or other compelling considerations so require, a case originating from one geographical region may be heard in another geographical region. (R.A. 8249, Sec. 2)

• In cases of written defamation. The case may be filed in the province or city where the offended party held office at the time of the commission of the offense if he is a public officer, or in the province or city where he actually resided at the time of the commission of the offense in case the offended party is a private individual. (RA. 4363)
• In cases of illegal recruitment, the criminal action can be filed in the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where the crime was committed or where the offended party actually resides at the time the offense was committed (R.A. 10022, Rule IV, § 6).
• Trafficking in persons, criminal action shall be filed where the offense was committed, or where any of its elements occurred, or where the trafficked person actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense (R.A. 9208, § 9). The State shall exercise jurisdiction over any act, even if committed outside the Philippines and whether or not such act or acts constitute an offense at the place of commission, it being a continuing offense, having been commenced in the Philippines and other elements having been committed in another country if the suspect or accused:
• Is a Filipino citizen,
• Is a permanent resident of the Philippines, or
• Has committed the act against a citizen of the Philippines.

No prosecution may be commenced if a foreign government has prosecuted or is prosecuting such person except upon the approval of the Secretary of Justice. (R.A. No. 9208, Sec. 26- A)

Note: This is a non-exclusive list. There are other special penal laws which have extraterritorial application.

Exception:

• If in rem or quasi in rem:
• the court may (if personal service is not practicable or possible) resort to Extraterritorial service (Sec. 17), regardless of whether the defendant is a resident or non-resident.
• If the action is in personam:
• Defendant is non-resident of PH:
• Personal service within the forum (PH) – (no choice)
• Defendant is a resident of the PH temporarily absent therefrom;
• Substituted (Sec. 6) or, with leave, exterritorial service (Sec. 18, referring to Sec. 17).
• Defendant unknown or unknown whereabouts – Sec. 16 – publication – ANY ACTION.

Service on Corporations

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL SERVICE, WHEN ALLOWED

Service on Corporations

Specific actions justifying application of Extraterritorial Service

Instances When Extra-territorial Service May be availed of

• Actions that affect the personal status of the plaintiff;
• Actions which relate to, or the subject matter of which is property within the Philippines, in which defendant claims a lien or interest, actual or contingent;
• Actions in which the relief demanded consists, wholly or in part in excluding the defendant from an interest in the property located in the Philippines; and
• When defendant’s property has been attached in the Philippines.

Applicability of Extra-territorial Service

Extra-territorial service of summons or summons by publication applies only when the action is in rem or quasi in rem. The first is an action against the thing itself instead of against the defendant’s person; in the latter, an individual is named as defendant, and the purpose is to subject that individual’s interest in a piece of property to the obligation or loan burdening it. (Jose v. Boyon, G.R. No. 147369, 2003)

As per the same rule, the following are the allowed Modes of Extra-Territorial Service

• Personal service under Section 6 of Rule 14.
• Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the court may order AND service by registered mail to the last known address of the defendant. Publication and service must BOTH concur
• In any other manner the court may deem sufficient

NOTE: ALL require prior leave of court.

Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, if acquired at all in such an action, is obtained by the voluntary submission of the defendant or by the personal service of process upon him within the territory where the process is valid. If, however, the defendant is a nonresident and, remaining beyond the range of the personal process of the court, refuses to come in voluntarily, the court never acquires jurisdiction over the person at all. (Banco Espanol-Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, 1918)

The said extraterritorial service of summons is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but for complying with the requirements of fair play or due process, so that the defendant will be informed of the pendency of the action against him and the possibility that property in the Philippines belonging to him or in which he has an interest may be subjected to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and he can thereby take steps to protect his interest if he is so minded. (Perkin Elmer Singapore Pte Ltd. v. Dakila Trading Corporation, G.R. No. 172242, 2007)

“In Any Other Manner the Court May Deem Sufficient”

The list of modes of service provided in the code is inclusive of the other modes that the court may deem sufficient.

In this light, note the difference between the following cases of Valmonte and Gemperle, where the common fact involves a spouse receiving in behalf of the other. Gerperle (see earlier discussion) is the EXCEPTION to the general rule of personal service.

In Cariaga Jr. v. Malaya, G.R. No. L-48375, 1986, summons was effected through extra-territorial service via registered mail and the court upheld its validity since it falls under the third mode, i.e., “in any manner the court may deem sufficient.”