US vs Bull

Facts:

 On December 2, 1908, a steamship vessel engages in the transport of animals names Stanford,
commanded by H.N. Bull, docked in the port and city of Manila, Philippines.
 It was found that the said vessel from Ampieng, Formosa carried 677 head of cattle and
carabaos, without proper shelter and suitable means for securing animals which resulted for
most of the animals to get hurt (cruelly wounded and bruised) and die while in transit.
 This cruelty towards the animals is said to be contrary to the provisions of Acts No. 55 and No.
275 of the Philippine Commission.
 Bull (Norwegian) : Norwegian vessel, and it is conceded that it was not registered or licensed in
the Philippine Islands under the laws thereof so it is not within the jurisdiction of the Philippines

Issue:

- W.O.N, the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a foreign ship while
inside the territorial waters of the Philippines.

Ruling:

YES. When the vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines where it embraces the entrance of
Manila Bay, the vessel is deemed to be within territorial waters. Thus the laws of the Philippines shall
apply. A crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the
jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines if the illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was
within the territorial waters - regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship settled
from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas.
The defendant was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of 250 pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
Principles:

Theories as to jurisdiction for crimes committed on board a foreign vessel:

a. French Rule – 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.
b. English rule – crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affect things within the
vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof.
US vs Look Chaw

Facts:

 On Aug 19, 1990, between 11 and 12 o’clock am, the chief of the department of the port of
Cebu and internal-revenue of Cebu went aboard the steamship Erroll to inspect and search its
cargo, and found sacks containing opium.
- Smaller sack of opium was found on the cabin near the saloon. (exhibit A)
- Larger sack of opium was found under the defendant’s control. (exhibit B)
- Later on, there were also four cans of opium found in the part of the ship where the firemen
sleep. (exhibit C)
 The defendant freely and of his own will and accord admitted that the sacks belonged to him.
He also stated that he bought them in Hongkong, with the intention of selling them as
contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz.
 It was established that the steamship Erroll was of the English nationality, that it came from
Hongkong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in Manila and Cebu.
 All the evidence found properly constitutes corpus delict (evidence).

Issue:

Can the courts of the local state exercise its jurisdiction over foreign vessels stationed in its port?

Ruling:

YES. Based on the provision of Art 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction
over the matter. The mere possession of a thing 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.

Ex. 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 that said place itself had competent
jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.

Thus the court modified the imprisonment and the fine imposed to six months and P1000.
 5
US vs AH SING

Facts :

 Ah Sing is a fireman at the steamhip Shun Chang, a foreign vessel which arrive at the
port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, coming directly from the port of Saigon.
 The authorities on making a search found eight cans of opium hidden in the ashes
below the boiler of the steamer’s engine.
 The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the said cans of opium, and that
he had purchased them in Saigon.
 However, he did not confess the purpose of buying the opium. He also didn’t say
that it was his intention to import the prohibited drug into the Philippine Inslands.
 No other evidence direct or indirect, to show that the intention of the accused was
to import illegally the opium into the Philippine islands, was introduced.

Issue : Is the appellant liable for the illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands under the
Philippine jurisdiction?

Ruling: YES. As stated by the Opium Law, we hold that any person who unlawfully imports or brings any
prohibited drug into the Philippines Islands, when the prohibited drug is found under this person’s
control on a vessel coming from a foreign country and is within the jurisdictional limits of the Philippine
Islands, is guilty of the crime of illegal importation of the drugs (opium) unless contrary circumstances
exist or the defense proves otherwise.

The defendant, having been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged and the sentence of the
trial court being within the limits provided by the law, it results that the judgement must be affirmed
with the costs of this instance against the appellant.

Art 2 of RPC can also be applicable to this case.

People vs. Lol-lo & Saraw

Facts:

 On June 30, 1920, 2 Dutch boats sailed for Peta in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia).
 The 2nd boat, which carried several passengers, arrived bet. The islands of Buang and Bukid.
 6 vintas with 24 armed men (Moros) surrounder the vessel.
 The Moros initially asked for food, but once on the Dutch boat, took for themselves all of the
cargo, attacked some men, and raped two women.
 They drilled holes into the boat to make it sink.
 After 11 days, the Moros finally arrived at Maruro.
 Two of the Moro marauder were Lol-Lo, who also raped one of the women, and Saraw.
 At Maruro the two women were able to escape.

 Lol-lo and Saraw later returned to their home in Sulu.

 Subsequently, they were charged with piracy. After trial, both were found guilty of the crime.

 The defendants argued that Philippine courts don’t have jurisdiction over their case since the
crime was committed in the high seas.

Issue:

1. W.O.N. the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime of piracy alleged in this case.
2. W.O.N the Spanish Penal Code provisions on piracy are still in force.

Ruling:

1. YES. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction on the case. Pirates are in law hostes humani generis
(A person who has committed a criminal act so grave). Piracy is a crime not against any
particular state but against all mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of any
country where the offender may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction of
piracy unlike any other crimes has no territorial limits. Thus, the jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a
foreign state cannot be applied in this case.
2. The provisions of Spanish Penal Code on piracy are still in force in the Philippines even when
there is a change in the sovereign power from Spain to the US by virtue of the Treaty of Paris
(1989). Municipal laws remain in force as long as they are consistent with the US Constitution,
the laws of the US, or the characteristics and institutions of the government. (President
McKinley to Gen. Meritt)

 The crime falls under the first paragraph of article 153 of the Penal Code in relation to 154:
- The crime of piracy was accompanied by (1) an offense against chastity and (2) the
abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving themselves.
 They both are found guilty of the crime of piracy. Lol-lo is sentenced to be hung until death.
 People vs Wong Cheng

Facts:
 The appellant (people), in rep. of the Atty. Gen. , filed an appeal that urges the revocation of
order of the Court of First Instance of Manila presented by the defendant.
 Wong cheng (defendant) is accused of having illegally spoked opium while onboard a merchant
vessel , called Changsa, of English nationality.
 The vessel was anchored in Manila Bay 2 and a half miles from the shores of the city.
 In the said demurrer (an objection that an opponent's point is irrelevant or invalid, while
granting the factual basis of the point.), the defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction
of the lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the case.

Issue :

 W.O.N. the Philippines courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed aboard vessels
anchored in our jurisdictional waters.

Ruling:

 YES. Based from our jurisdiction, smoking 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.
 Therefore, the demurrer is revoked and the court ordered further proceedings.

Principles:

 Opium Law – its objective is to protect the inhabitants of the Philippines against the disastrous
effects entailed by the use of this drug, its mere possession in such a ship, w/o being used in our
territory is NOT considered as a disturbance of public order.
 French rule – crimes are committed aboard a foreign merchant vessels shout not be prosecuted
in the courts of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction they were committed, unless
they affect the peace and security of the territory.
 English rule – crimes perpetrated under such circumstances are triable in the courts of the
country within territory they were committed.
Maquibas v. Commanding General

Facts:

 Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and a civilian employee of the US Army in the Philippines, who has
been charged with disposing in the Port of Manila Area of things belonging to the US Army, in
violation of the 94th Article of War of the US.
 He has been arrested for that reason and a Gen. Court-Martial appointed by respondent tried
and found him guilty.
 He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. However, this sentence is not yet final for it is still
subject to review.
 On March 11, 1947, the Rep. of the Philippines and the Government of the USA, entered into an
agreement concerning military bases.

Issue:

 W.O.N. the offense has been committed within a US base and if it gives the US jurisdiction over
the case.

Ruling:

NO. The Port of manila, where the offense was committed, is not within a US base for it is not included
in the names under the Annex A and B of Article XXVI of the Military Base Agreement (MBA) bet. The US
and the Philippines. It’s merely part of the temporary quarters located within presented limits of the city
of Manila.

Moreover, extended installations and temporary quarters are not considered to have the same
jurisdictional capacity as permanent bases and are governed by Art. XIII paragraphs 2 and 4. The offense
at bar, therefore is in the beyond jurisdiction of military courts.

He is also not considered as a member of the US armed forces. Even under the articles of war, the fact
that a civilian employee is in the service of the US Army doesn’t make him a member of the armed
forces.

 General court-martial has no jurisdiction to try petitioner for the offense allegedly committed by
him and, consequently, the judgement rendered by said court sentencing the petitioner to 15
years imprisonment is NULL and VOID for lack of jurisdiction.