DIGESTS FOR CONFLICTS OF LAW UA&P LAW 2018

US v. Bull
No. 5270, 15 January 1910

FACTS:

 The appellant was convicted by the CFI for violation of Sec. 1 of Act No. 55.
 The information alleges that Defendant Bull was the master of steam sailing vessel known
as the Standard, which was engaged in the carrying and transporting of cattle, carabaos,
and other animals from a foreign port, to the port of the City of Manila without providing
suitable means for securing said animals while in transit, that by reason of the neglect and
failure of the accused to provide suitable means for securing said animals while so in
transit, the noses of some of said animals were cruelly torn, and many of the said animals
were tossed about upon the decks and hold of said vessel, and cruelly wounded, bruised
and killed.
 The defendant appealed to this court, contending that the CFI has no jurisdiction to hear
and determine the case. Furthermore, it is contended that the information is insufficient
because it does not state that the court was sitting at a port where the cattle were
disembarked, or that the offense was committed on board a vessel registered and licensed
under the laws of the Philippine Islands.

ISSUE:

Whether the CFI had jurisdiction over the crime committed.

HELD: YES

RATIO:

 When a foreign merchant ship enters territorial waters, the ship's officers and crew are
subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial courts, subject to such limitations only as have
been conceded by the territorial sovereign through the proper political agencies.

 The offense of failing to provide suitable means for securing animals while transporting
them on a ship from a foreign port to a port of the Philippine Islands 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.

 Furthermore, every state has complete control and jurisdiction over its territorial waters.
According to strict legal right, even public vessels may not enter the ports of a friendly
power without permission, but it is now conceded that in the absence of a prohibition such
ports are considered as open to the public ship of all friendly powers. The exemption of
such vessels from local jurisdiction while within such waters was not established until
within comparatively recent times. Such vessels are therefore permitted during times of
peace to come and go freely. Local official exercise but little control over their actions, and
offenses committed by their crew are justiciable by their own officers acting under the laws
to which they primarily owe allegiance. This limitation upon the general principle of
territorial sovereignty is based entirely upon comity and convenience, and finds its
justification in the fact that experience shows that such vessels are generally careful to
respect local laws and regulation which are essential to the health, order, and well-being

RJTS
DIGESTS FOR CONFLICTS OF LAW UA&P LAW 2018

of the port. But comity and convenience does not require the extension of the same degree
of exemption to merchant vessels.

 Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has recently said that the merchant
vessels of one country visiting the ports of another for the purpose of trade, subject
themselves to the laws which govern the ports they visit, so long as they remain; and this
as well in war as in peace, unless otherwise provided by treaty.

 The treaty does not therefore deprive the local courts of jurisdiction over offenses
committed on board a merchant vessel by one member of the crew against another which
amount to a disturbance of the order or tranquility of the country, and a fair and reasonable
construction of the language requires us to hold that any violation of criminal laws disturbs
the order or tranquility of the country. The offense with which the appellant is charged had
nothing to do with any difference between the captain and the crew. It was a violation by
the master of the criminal law of the country into whose port he came. We thus find that
neither by reason of the nationality of the vessel, the place of the commission of the
offense, or the prohibitions of any treaty or general principle of public law, are the court of
the Philippine Islands deprived of jurisdiction over the offense charged in the information
in this case.

RJTS