US vs Bull, January 15, 1910 Doctrine: offenses committed w/in territorial waters (even aboard a foreign vessel) are

under the jurisdiction of the Phil. Short Description: The appellant was already convicted in the CFI for bringing into the port of Manila 677 heads of cattle and carabaos w/o providing a suitable means of securing said animals while in transit. Facts: H.N. Bull was master of (Norwegian) steamship Standard, which transported 677 cattle and carabaos to the port of Manila Ship route: port of Ampieng, Formosa- port of Manila, Phils. These animals were without proper means of securing them, ropes were tied on nose ring, bruised, and killed. Act No. 55 sufficient forage and fresh water to provide for the suitable sustenance of such animals during suitable and proper facilities for loading and unloading cattle without cruelty or unnecessary suffering. ISSUES: a. W/n the trial court was with jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. b. W/n Act No. 55, as amended, is in violation of certain provisions of the Constitutions of the US. (Since US has its own rules regarding the regulation of commerce w/in its ports) HELD: (a) YES. Act No. 55 confers jurisdiction over the offense. When the vessel came w/in 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlands w/c embraces the entrance to Manila Bay, she was w/in territorial waters. The completed forbidden act was thus done w/in American waters, & the court therefore had jurisdiction over the subjectmatter of the offense & the person of the offender. Regardless that such conditions existed when the ship was w/in a foreign territory or international waters, but when the ship enetered our territorial waters, they already violated Act 55 (b) NO. The Constitution of the US operates only upon the States of the Union. Phils. is not part of that Union of States. Disposition: Defendant guilty, fine: PhP250 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and pay the costs. Sentence and judgment affirmed. People vs Wong Cheng, October 19, 1922 Doctrine: Smoking opium within Philippine waters is a breach of public order, and therefore punishable by the courts Short Description: The Attorney-General appealed for the revocation of the order of the CFI Manila, arguing that Phils. have no jurisdiction over a foreign vessel Facts: Wong Cheng/ Wong Chun allegedly smoked opium Changsa, English vessel anchored in Manila Bay 2 miles from shore Demurrer: lack of jurisdiction on the part of lower court, which so held and dismissed the case Issues: 1. Does the lower court have jurisdiction considering territory and nationality of the ship?

2. Does the act promote breach of public order? Held: 1. Yes, offense committed on board a foreign merchant vessel while on Philippine waters is triable before our court. 2. Yes. Possession aboard a foreign vessel in transit is allowed but smoking opium is a breach of public order thus it is not allowed Disposition: The order appealed from is revoked and the cause ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law, without special findings as to costs. So ordered. US vs Look Chaw, December 16, 1910 Doctrine: Mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in the Phils. within a foreign vessel in transit while in the premises of Philippine waters does not constitute breach of public order but if it is landed on Philippine lands, it is a violation of the law Facts: Chief of the dept. port of Cebu, through the info from internal revenue agent of Cebu, that there were opium inside the ship Erroll (English vessel) thus they searched the ship. Found 49 cans of opium and more sacks and several cans were found on Look Chow's Cabin Look Chow admitted that it was his and he intends to sell them in Mexico or Vera Look Chow even sold 1 can to a gov't secret agent Look Chaw was charged with illegal possession and sale of opium. Issues: 1. Does the court have jurisdiction over the possession of opium in this case? 2. If affirmative, should all the evidences be taken into account? Held: 1. Yes, because in this case, the cans of opium were landed on Philippine soil and in fact he even sold one to a gov't secret agent Although mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in the Phils., aboard a foreign vessel in transit, does not constitute a violation of the law. However, when that particular prohibited thing was landed landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the laws of the land and a breach of public order 2. No, only the ones that reached Philippine soil. Disposition: The court reduced the imprisonment and the fine to 6 month and PhP1,000; affirmed in all other respects, costs against appellant.

US vs Ah Sing, October 10, 1917 Short Description: Defendant appealed from the judgment of CFI Cebu convicting him of violation of the Opium Law for importation of Opium. Facts: CFIs judgment: -2 years imprisonment -fine PhP300 or subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency -pay the costs Ah Sing, Chinese, fireman on the steamship Shun Chang (foreign steamer) He bought 8 cans of Opium in Saigon and brought them with him on the ship. April 25, 1917-Shun Chang anchored in Cebu port, authorities found the cans in the ashes below the boiler of the steamers engine.

He confessed he was the owner. No other evidence direct or indirect to show Ah Sings intention to import. Vessel not in transit

Issues: Has the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands been proven? Held: Yes Ratio: 1. US vs Jose: Importation complete, it was sufficient that the opium was brought into the waters of the Philippine Islands on a boat destined for a Philippine port and which subsequently anchored in a port of the Philippine Islands with intent to discharge its cargo. 2. Federal Courts of US: the mere fact of going into a port, without breaking bulk, is prima facie evidence of importation. 3. Opium Law: any person unlawfully imports or brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands, when the prohibited drug is found under this persons control on a vessel which has come direct from a foreign country and is within the juridical limits of the Philippine Islands. In such a case, a person is guilty of illegal importation of the drug unless contrary circumstances exist or the defense proves otherwise. Disposition: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment affirmed. Costs against the appellant People vs Lol-Lo & Saraw, February 27, 1922 Facts: On or about June 30, 1920, two Dutch boats left matuta: Boat 1- one Dutch Boat 2- 11 Dutch men, women and children After a few days, Boat 2 arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies. It was then surrounded by 6 vintas, 24 armed Moros- asked food but attacked men, brutally violated and abducted two women. They put holes and placed all persons back into the boat with the idea of submerging it. People we succored after 11 days. Lol-lo (raped one of the women), and Saraw At Maruri, the two women escaped Lol-lo and Saraw returned to their home in South Ubian, Tawi-tawi, Sulu. Arrested and charged piracy CFI Sulu Demurrer: offense charged was not within the jurisdiction of the CFI, nor any court in the Philippines & acts did not constitute public offense against laws of the Philippines, Issues: Does the Philippine court have jurisdiction over the act even if it happened outside Philippine territory? Held: Yes Ratio: 1. Pirates- hostes humani generic. 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 all other crimes has no territorial limits. As it is against all so may it be punished by all. Nor does it matter that the crime was committed within the

jurisdictional 3-mile limit of a foreign state, "for those limits, though neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes." (U.S. vs. Furlong) 2. Article 153 to 156 of the Penal Code reads as follows: ART. 153. The crime of piracy committed against Spaniards, or the subjects of another nation not at war with Spain, shall be punished with a penalty ranging from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua. If the crime be committed against nonbelligerent subjects of another nation at war with Spain, it shall be punished with the penalty of presidio mayor. ART. 154. Those who commit the crimes referred to in the first paragraph of the next preceding article shall suffer the penalty of cadena perpetua or death, and those who commit the crimes referred to in the second paragraph of the same article, from cadena temporal to cadena perpetua: 1. Whenever they have seized some vessel by boarding or firing upon the same. 2. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, or by any of the physical injuries specified in articles four hundred and fourteen and four hundred and fifteen and in paragraphs one and two of article four hundred and sixteen. 3. Whenever it is accompanied by any of the offenses against chastity specified in Chapter II, Title IX, of this book. 4. Whenever the pirates have abandoned any persons without means of saving themselves. 5. In every case, the captain or skipper of the pirates. ART. 155. With respect to the provisions of this title, as well as all others of this code, when Spain is mentioned it shall be understood as including any part of the national territory. ART. 156. For the purpose of applying the provisions of this code, every person, who, according to the Constitution of the Monarchy, has the status of a Spaniard shall be considered as such. By the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded the Philippine Islands to the United States. A logical construction of articles of the Penal Code, like the articles dealing with the crime of piracy, would be that wherever "Spain" is mentioned, it should be substituted by the words "United States" and wherever "Spaniards" are mentioned, the word should be substituted by the expression "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Philippine Islands." somewhat similar reasoning led this court in the case of United States vs. Smith ([1919], 39 Phil., 533) to give to the word "authority" as found in the Penal Code a limited meaning, which would no longer comprehend all religious, military, and civil officers, but only public officers in the Government of the Philippine Islands. Disposition: The judgment of the trial court as to the defendant and appellant Saraw is affirmed, and is reversed as to the defendant and appellant Lol-lo, who is found guilty of the crime of piracy and is sentenced therefore to be hung until dead, at such time and place as shall be fixed by the judge of first instance of the Twenty-sixth Judicial District. The two appellants together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in another case, shall indemnify jointly and severally the offended parties in the equivalent of 924 rupees, and shall pay a one-half part of the costs of both instances. So ordered. People vs Oanis Facts: The accused Chief of Police Antonio Z. Oanis and Corporal Alberto Galanta, chief of police of Cabanatuan and corporal of the Philippine Constabulary, respectively, were found guilty of reckless impudence resulting to homicide for the death of Serapio Tecson The accused appealed separately Cap. Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector, Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija received a telegram: "Information received escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or alive." -Major Guido Upon orders of their Captain, the defendants, stormed the place They saw one Brigida Mallare and told them that Irene is sleeping with her lover While Serapio Tecson was sleeping with his back towards the door, they simultaneously or successively fired at him thinking it was Anselmo Balagtas Irene fainted Provincial Inspector asked who killed. We two sir- Galanta Galanta Upon opening the, curtain Oanis said If you are Balagtas, stand up he and Irened woke up and as Oanis Upon opening the, curtain Oanis said If you are Balagtas, stand up.

the former was about to sit up in bed, Oanis fired at him. Wounded. Tecson leans towards the door, and Oanis receded and shouted That is Balagtas Galanta then fired at Tecson

Galanta at once fired at Tecson, the supposed Balagtas, while the latter was still lying on bed, and continued firing until he had exhausted his bullets: that it was only thereafter that he, Oanis, entered the door and upon seeing the supposed Balagtas, who was then apparently watching and picking up something from the floor, he fired at him.

Decision: 1.) Not an innocentmistake of fact they were not pressed by the circumstances to act immediately had the time take make a bloodless arrest 2.) "No unnecessary or unreasonable force shall be used in making an arrest, and the person arrested shall not be subject to any greater restraint than is necessary for his detention." (Rule 109, sec. 2, par. 2, Rules of Court). And a peace officer cannot claim exemption from criminal liability if he uses unnecessary force or violence in making an arrest (5 C.J., p. 753; U.S. vs. Mendoza, 2 Phil., 109). 3.) Not a mere criminal negligence since the killing being intentional and not accidental. 4.) Does not constitute a mitigating circumstance under the lawful exercise of duty (Art. 11, par. 5 RPC) a.) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right; and b.) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of a due performance of their duty. (only the first prerequisite was satisfied) Ruling: Guilty of murder with the mitigating circumstance above mentioned, and accordingly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of from five (5) years of prision correctional to fifteen (15) years of reclusion temporal, with the accessories of the law, and to pay the heirs of the deceased Serapio Tecson jointly and severally an indemnity of P2,000, with costs. US vs Ah Chong Description: Appeal of Ah Chong from the RTC judgment of assassination, tried and found guily of simple homicide with extenuating circumstances, 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor (minimum penalty) claiming selfdefense. Facts:

Ah Chong, cook and Pascual Gualberto, houseboy- roommates at Officers quarters no 27 40 meaters from the nearest building. Night of August 14, 1908, about 10 PM. Ah Chong sleeping, awakened by someone trying to force open the door. Who is there? twice no answer convinced that there was someone Room very dark If you enter the room, I will kill you. Struck above the knee by the edge of the chair- thought he was being attacked Siezed the kitchen knife he kept under his pillow, and struck out wildly the intruder. Pascual. Pascual ran out the porch, fell down on the steps, wounded. Defendant recognized him called his employers, No. 28 and bind up Pascuals wounds He admitted that he stabbed his roommate. DEFENSE: no intent to do a wrongful act, in the exercise of his lawful right of self-defense

Issues: Can Ah Chong be acquitted because of mistake of the fact? Decision: Yes

Ratio: 1. Article 11 of the Penal Code provides that The ff are not delinquent and are therefore exempt from criminal liability: a.) Illegal aggression b.) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. c.) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. (Court ruled however that): - there was no such unlawful or illegal aggression - no real necessity to use the knife and resort to violence 2. Justifiable and excusable mistake of fact (Court acquitted Ah Chong based on this argument) a.) having no time or opportunity to make further inquiry b.) pressed by the circumstances c.) had no alternative to take the facts