7/2/24, 3:26 PM Case Digest: G.R. No.

L-5887 - People vs Look Chaw

Title
People vs Look Chaw

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. L-5887 ARELLANO, C.J Dec 15, 1911

In the case of U.S. v. Look Chaw, the court rules that it has jurisdiction to try the
defendant for the unlawful possession of opium when the opium was landed
from a foreign vessel onto Philippine soil.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5887)

Comprehensive

Facts:
In the case of "People vs Look Chaw" (G.R. No. L-5887), decided on December 16, 1911, the
United States, as the plaintiff-appellee, brought charges against Look Chaw (alias Luk
Chiu), the defendant-appellant, for the unlawful possession of opium. The case was
initially filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where the defendant was accused of
carrying, keeping, and possessing 96 kilograms of opium and being caught in the act of
selling opium worth 1,000 pesos. The defense filed a demurrer on the grounds that the
complaint charged more than one crime. The court sustained the demurrer, leading to
the separation of the charges into two complaints: one for unlawful possession and the
other for unlawful sale of opium. The case at hand concerns only the unlawful
possession of opium. On August 19, 1909, officials, including the chief of the department
of the port of Cebu and the internal-revenue agent of Cebu, inspected the steamship
Erroll and found two sacks of opium, designated as Exhibits A and B, in the cabin and
hold of the ship, respectively. The defendant admitted that these sacks belonged to him
and that he had purchased them in Hongkong with the intention of selling them as
contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz. Additional evidence included another lot of four
cans of opium (Exhibit C) found in the firemen's sleeping quarters and a can of opium
(Exhibit D) bought from the defendant by a secret-service agent. The defense admitted
that the receptacles contained opium and were found on board the steamship Erroll, an
English vessel bound for Mexico via Manila and Cebu.

Issue:
1. Did the court have jurisdiction to try the case?
2. Did the facts constitute a crime?

Ruling:

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/u-s-v-look-chaw 1/2
7/2/24, 3:26 PM Case Digest: G.R. No. L-5887 - People vs Look Chaw

The court ruled that it had jurisdiction since the crime was committed within its district,
on the wharf of Cebu. The court sentenced the defendant to five years' imprisonment, a
fine of P10,000, and additional subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, with the
confiscation of the opium in favor of the Insular Government. The defendant appealed
the judgment. The Supreme Court reduced the imprisonment to six months and the fine
to P1,000, affirming the judgment in all other respects, with costs against the appellant.

Ratio:
The Supreme Court found that while mere possession of a prohibited item aboard a
foreign vessel in transit does not constitute a crime triable by local courts, the landing of
such an item on Philippine soil constitutes an open violation of local laws. Therefore, the
court established in the place where the crime was committed had competent
jurisdiction. The court also noted that the penalties imposed were excessive given the
circumstances. Consequently, the Supreme Court reduced the imprisonment to six
months and the fine to P1,000, affirming the judgment in all other respects, with costs
against the appellant.

https://jur.ph/jurisprudence/digest/u-s-v-look-chaw 2/2