THE UNITED STATES VS. H.N.

BULL
G.R. No. 5270, 15 January 1910 (Elliot)
COUNSELS: Bruce & Lawrence for defendant-appellant; OSG Harvey for the plaintiff-appellee FACTS Defendant-appellant H.N. Bull, captain of the Norwegian steamship Standard, was convicted in the Court of First Instance of a violation of Section 1 of Act No. 275. Alleged information: o The vessel Standard was engaged in transporting cattle, carabaos, and other animals from Manila for months o On December 2, 1908, the defendant willfully, wrongfully, and unlawfully transported 677 head of cattle and carabaos from Ampieng, Formosa, to Manila o The defendant failed to provide suitable means for securing the said animals and many of the animals were injured or killed Defendant contends: 1) Complaint lacks facts to confer jurisdiction on the court 2) Trial court had no jurisdiction to hear the case because the complaint was defective 3) Act No. 55 as amended violated the U.S. constitution and was therefore void 4) Evidence was insufficient to support conviction ISSUES & HOLDINGS WoN information is insufficient to confer jurisdiction YES - Act No. 55 confers jurisdiction on Courts of First Instance/ provost courts where animals are disembarked - The vessel Standard, by coming within 3 miles of the headlines/headlands of Manila Bay, entered territorial waters and became subject to Philippine Law - Extraterritoriality principle only accorded to vessels of war and is founded on courtesy and mutual deference between nations. - French rule: merchant vessels are justiciable only by the country to which they belong; English rule: when in territorial waters, merchant vessels become subject to local jurisdiction. PH follows English rule by virtue of US influence. - Treaty between US, Sweden and Norway allows consular officials of the foreign vessel to arbitrate only in disputes among the crew of the ship. WoN complaint was defective immaterial; need only be understandable WoN appellant acted willfully and knowingly YES, established by his experience WoN Act No. 55 violates the US Consti NO - Acts made by the Phil. Commission are applicable until annulled by the US DECISION: GUILTY, with a fine of PHP250 |

THE PEOPLE OF THE PI VS. WONG CHENG

G.R. No. L-18924, 19 October 1922 (Romualdez)
COUNSELS: Atty-Gen Villa-Real for plaintiff-appellant; Eduardo Gutierrez Repide for defendant-appellee FACTS Defendant Wong Cheng is accused of having illegally smoked Opium while onboard the English merchant vessel Changsa as it was anchored in Manila Bay, 2.5 miles from shore The defendant presented a demurrer alleging lack of jurisdiction, which was sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila ISSUE & HOLDING WoN PH has jurisdiction over crimes committed on merchant vessels YES - French rule: crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels should not be prosecuted by the territorial state unless the crime affects peace and security; English rule: territorial principle. PH follows the English rule. - (The Schooner Exchange vs. MFadden) merchant vessels are dangerous to society - (US vs. Bull) vessels within 3 miles from the headlands are within PH territory - (Mali and Mildenbus vs. Keeper of the Common Jail) disturbance of public peace can be suppressed and policed by the authorities of the local jurisdiction - (US vs Look Chaw) landed vessels carrying prohibited articles violate PH laws - No existing treaty between US and England renouncing jurisdiction DECISION: Appeal granted and remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.

THE UNITED STATES VS. LOOK CHAW

G.R. No. L-5887, 16 December 1910 (Arellano, C.J.)
COUNSELS: Thos D. Aitken for defendant-appellant; Atty-Gen Villamor for plaintiff-appellee FACTS The defendant was accused of possessing 96kg of opium onboard the English steamship Erroll and had been caught in the act of selling PHP1000 worth of prepared opium The steamship had come from HK, bound for Mexico via the ports of Manila and Cebu A secret-service agent had purchased a can of opium from the defendant and surrendered it to the office of the governor Between 11pm and midnight on Aug 19, 1909, the chief of the department of the port of Cebu and internal-revenue agent of Cebu inspected and searched the cargo of the ship and found 2 sacks containing cans of opium, and another 4 cans of opium were found at the area of the ship where the firemen sleep The defense presented a demurrer on the grounds that there was lack of jurisdiction and the complaint contained 2 charges The fiscal separated the charges and filed a complaint solely for possession of opium The court sentenced the defendant to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of PHP10,000 The defendant appealed to the court ISSUES & HOLDING: WoN the PH has jurisdiction YES - When a prohibited article is landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, such is an open violation of the laws of the land and only Philippine courts have jurisdiction WoN maximum penalties should be imposed NO - Despite the considerable amount of opium found, it does not appear that the maximum penalties for possession and sale of opium should be imposed DECISION: The judgment of the court is AFFIRMED, imprisonment and fine are reduced to six months and PHP1000 respectively, with costs against the appellant.

THE UNITED STATES VS. AH SING

G.R. No. L-13005, 10 October 1917 (Malcolm)
COUNSELS: Antonio Sanz for defendant-appellant; Acting Atty-Gen Paredes for plaintiffappellee FACTS The defendant, a subject of China, works as a fireman on the steamship Shun Chang Said steamer arrived at Cebu from Saigon on April 25, 1917, carrying 8 cans of opium The Court of First Instance of Cebu sentenced the defendant to 2 years imprisonment with a fine of PHP300 for violating Section 4 of Act No. 2381 (Opium Law) ISSUES & HOLDING WoN the crime of importation of opium into the PI has been proven - (US vs. Look Chaw) opium when landed upon PH soil violates the laws of the land - The charges, state of transit differ between US vs. Look Chaw and the present case - (US vs. Jose) the govt must prove that the vessel came from a foreign country with the drug on board; according to the dictum, It was not necessary that the opium was discharged or that it be taken from the ship. It was sufficient that the opium was brought into the waters of the PI on a boat destined for a PH port - Federal Courts of the US hold that the mere act of going into a port is prima facie evidence of importation - It would be absurd to think that the accused was merely carrying opium back and forth between Saigon and Cebu for the mere pleasure of so doing. DECISION: The judgment of the court is AFFIRMED, with costs against the appellant.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PI VS. LOL-LO & SARAW

G.R. No. 17958, 27 February 1922 (Malcolm)
COUNSELS: Thos D. Aitken for defendant-appellants; Acting Atty-Gen Tuason for plaintiffappellee FACTS On or about June 30, 1920, a boat carrying a Dutchman and a boat carrying 11 men, women, and children left Matuta for Peta, both Dutch possessions. The second boat arrived between the islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies where it was surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 armed Moros. The Moros pilfered the cargo, attacked some of the men, and violated 2 of the women. They also placed holes in the boat intending for it to submerge and left all the passengers except the 2 young women there. The Moros arrived at Maruro where the 2 women were able to escape. 2 of the marauders, Lol-lo and Saraw, returned home to South Ubian in Tawi-Tawi, PI, where they were arrested for piracy at the First Court of Instance of Sulu. A demurrer was presented alleging lack of jurisdiction and that the facts did not constitute a public offense under PH laws, but was overruled by the trial judge. Both defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment and to return 39 sacks of copras or to indemnify them in the amount of 924 rupees, and to pay half the costs (together with Kinawalang and Maulanis, defendants in another case) ISSUES & HOLDING WoN the Court of First Instance of Sulu has jurisdiction YES - Piracy robbery/forcible depredation on the high seas done in the spirit of universal hostility and intention to steal (animo furandi) - Pirates are hostes humani and piracy is a crime against humanity; punishable by all WoN Arts. 153-156 of the Penal Code are still in force YES - Provisions are consistent with those in force in the US Whether cadena perpetua or death should be imposed different penalties - 2 circumstances present: offenses against chastity, and abandonment of persons without apparent means of saving themselves - Aggravating circumstance: nocturnity; mitigating circumstance: lack of instruction - 3 additional aggravating circumstances: deliberately augmenting the crime, advantage of superior strength, adding ignominy to the natural effects of the act DECISION: Judgment AFFIRMED for Saraw; INCREASED to capital punishment by hanging for Lol-lo, and payment of the equivalent of 924 rupees and half of the costs of both instances. |

THE UNITED STATES VS. AH CHONG

G.R. No. L-5272, 19 March 1910 (Carson)
COUNSELS: Gibb & Gale for defendant-appellant; Atty-Gen Villamor for plaintiff-appellee FACTS Defendant-appellant Ah Chong was employed as a cook at the Officers Quarters, No. 27, Fort McKinley, Rizal, where Pascual Gualberto was employed as a houseboy. The house was used as an officers club and only the two servants slept in the house For security purposes, they secured the door of their shared room with a latch and a propped up chair. The roommates had an agreement that when either would return late, he would knock on the door and identify himself. Pascual had gone for a walk with his friends Celestino Quiambao and Mariano Ibanez, servants at No. 28, Fort McKinley. At about 10pm on Aug 14, 1908, Ah Chong was awakened by the sound of the door being forced. Thinking it was a thief, the defendant attacked the intruder with a kitchen knife kept under the pillow. Upon recognizing that it was Pascual, the defendant called to his employers in the next house and ran back to his room to bind up Pascuals wounds. Celestino and Mariano heard cries for assistance and found Pascual fatally wounded at No. 27. One of them ran back to No. 28 to call Lieutenants Jacobs and Healy who went to the aid of the wounded man. The defendant admitted to the stabbing. There had been several robberies in the area, which is why the defendant had a knife. The defendant was charged with assassination and found guilty of simple homicide with extenuating circumstances and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor. ISSUES & HOLDING WoN the defendant was acting in self-defense NO - The intruder was not a thief nor was the defendant or his property in real danger WoN a mistake of fact exempts one from criminal liability YES - Provided the alleged ignorance/ mistake was not due to negligence or bad faith - Malice, or criminal intent in some form, is an essential requisite of all crimes DECISION: Judgment REVERSED, the defendant is acquitted of the crime and his bail bond exonerated, with costs of both instances de oficio. DISSENT: Torres: The crime was executed with real negligence as the acts committed by the deceased could not warrant the aggression received. Penalty should be commuted to 1 year and 1 month of prision correctional and to pay an indemnity of PHP1000 to the heirs. |

THE PEOPLE OF THE PH VS. OANIS AND GALANTA

G.R. No. L-47722, 27 July 1943 (Moran)
COUNSELS: Defendant-appellant Antonio Oanis on his own behalf; Maximo Valenzuela for defendant-appellant Galanta; Acting Sol-Gen and Asst Atty Torres for plaintiff-appellee
FACTS In the afternoon of December 24, 1938, Capt Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, received a telegram from Major Guido containing instructions to capture dead or alive an escaped convict Anselmo Balagtas. The assembled team included defendant Corporal Alberto Galanta, and privates Nicomedes Oralo, Venancio Serna and D. Fernandez who were given clippings with pictures of Balagtas and were given instructions to capture him dead or alive. Chief of Police Oanis was given the same instructions, and when asked if he knew a bailarina named Irene, replied that he did and volunteered to go with the party. The group split into two and the pair of Oanis and Galanta approached one Brigida Mallare who directed them to Irenes room and informed them that Irene was with her paramour. Seeing a man sleeping with his back towards the door, they shot at him with their .32 and .45 caliber revolvers. The man killed was Serapio Tecson. The appellants gave conflicting testimonies. The testimony of Irene Requinea is alone consistent. The court declared them guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.

ISSUES AND HOLDING WoN the defendants are criminally liable for the death caused YES - (US vs Ah Chong) non-liability by reasons for honest mistake of fact - Appellants had ample time and opportunity to ascertain Tecsons identity and to make a bloodless arrest as the victim was asleep and unarmed - Rules 109, Sec 2 Par 2 of the Rules of Court: "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." Whether the crime committed was homicide or murder MURDER - The qualifying circumstance of alevosia applies because the victim was asleep - Mitigating circumstance: incomplete justifying circumstance in Art. 11 of the RPC (acting in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office) DECISION: GUILTY of MURDER with a mitigating circumstance, sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 5 years of prision correctional to 15 years of reclusion temporal and to pay the heirs jointly and severally an indemnity of PHP2000 with costs. DISSENT: Paras: Instance can serve as a warning to anybody who would follow the footsteps of Balagtas. Defendants should be acquitted. Hontiveros: Oanis is entitled to a reversal of the decision; Galanta should be acquitted. |