Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

US v. Bull This is an Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Facts: Bull was convicted by the Court of First Instance for violating Section 1, Act 55, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 275 Bull contends: o That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court It doe s not state that the court was sitting at the port where the cattle was disembarked or that the vessel was committed on board a vessel registered and licensed under Phil laws That under the evidence the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine the case That Act No. 55 as amended is in violation of certain provisions of the Consti of the US and void as applied to the facts of this case That the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction

o o o

On and for many months prior to December 2, 1908, Bull was a master of steam sailing vessel, Standard, a Norwegian vessel
Standard was carrying and transporting carabaos, cattle, and other animals from Formosa to Manila Bull wrongfully, willfully, and unlawfully transported 677 head of cattle and carabaos without providing suitable means for securing said animals while in transit o Failed to provide stalls and suitable means for tying and securing in a proper manner o Tied the animals with rings passed through their noses o Permitted others to be transported loose in the hold and on the deck of the vessel without being tied or secured in stalls, and without bedding o As a result, the noses of some animals were cruelly torn, and many were tossed about upon the decks and hold and cruelly wounded, bruised, and killed o These are against the law which states that animals be transported securely so as to avoid any cruelty and unnecessary harm o The law also provides that anyone violating the law will have to pay a penalty of not less than S100 nor more than S500

Issues: Does the court have jurisdiction over the vessel which is not registered and licensed by Phil laws? Held: The Court found Bull guilty and was sentenced with a fine of P250 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.

The Philippines had jurisdiction when the ship came within its (3 miles from the headlands which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay) territorial waters o The offense, though started in transit, continued and was completed within American (Phil) waters
o Every state has complete control and jurisdiction of its territorial waters o War ships are exempted based on comity and convenience o Comity and convenience doesnt extend to merchant vessels o We observe the English rule o The animals need not be embarked for the court to have jurisdiction 2 rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard a merchant vessel while in territorial waters of another country: French rule crimes are not triable in that country unless the crime affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered

English rule crimes are tribale in that country unless they merely affect things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof - Violation of criminal laws disturbs the order or tranquility of the country People vs. Wong Cheng This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Attorney-General urges the Revocation of the order of the court. Facts: Wong Cheng is accused of illegally smoking opium on board of the merchant vessel Changsa which is of English nationality while the said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay 2 miles from the shores Wong Cheng submitted a demurrer alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court which, subsequently held and dismissed the case Issue: Does the Philippine have jurisdictions over a crime which was committed aboard a merchant vessel anchored in our territorial waters? Held: The Court revoked the order and the cause was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in accordance with law

Merchant vessels entering territorial waters owe temporary and local allegiance to the country
Disorders which disturb only the peace of the ship or those on board will be dealt with by their home country, but those that will disturb the public peace will be suppressed and if need be, the offenders punished by authorities of the local jurisdiction Mere possession of opium aboard a vessel does not constitute a crime But to smoke opium within the territorial limits is a breach of public order because it causes such drug to produce its pernicious effects within our territory US vs. Look Chaw This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Facts: Bet 11 and 12am of August 9, 1909, several persons Messrs. Jacks and Milliron went aboard the steamship Errol (English) to inspect and search its cargo Found sacks of opium which Look Chaw admitted to be his which he bought from Hong Kong with the intention of selling them in Mexico or Vera Cruz Look Chaw carried, kept, possessed and had in his possession and control 96 kg of opium Was caught selling P1,000 worth of prepared opium The defense moved for the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction The court ruled that the maximum penalty should be imposed because of the amount of opium The court has jurisdiction because the crime was committed in the wharf of Cebu The court sentenced defendant to five years in prison and P10,000 fine Issue: Does Phil court have jurisdiction

Held: The Court ruled against the defendant but reduced his fine to P1, 000 and imprisonment to six months Mere possession of a prohibited substance is not triable but once it is landed on Philippine soil, it becomes an open violation of the laws US vs. Ah Sing This is an Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Facts:

Ah Sing is a Chinese who works as a fireman on the steamship Shun Chang Shun Chang is a foreign streamer which arrived at the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917 from Saigon Defendant had 8 cans of opium in his possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu Defendant admitted ownership of the opium but did not say it was his intention to import them into the country No evidence exist proving that defendant will import opium in the country The court sentenced defendant to 2 yrs in prison and P300

Issue: Does the country have jurisdiction Held: The Court found the defendant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and affirmed the lower courts decision Law states that Any person who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands Importation is not the entrance of the goods at the custom house but merely the bringing of the goods into the port

Any person unlawfully imports or brings any prohibited drugs in the country when the prohibited drug is found in that person control on a vessel which
has come from a foreign country and is within the territory of the country A person is guilty of illegal importation of the drug unless proven otherwise The vessel was not in transit that time People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw This is an Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. Facts: June 30, 1920 2 boats left Matuta, a Dutch possession, for Peta, another Dutch possession o In one boat was a Dutch citizen o The other boat contained 11 men, women and children who were also subjects of Holland After some days, the other boat arrived between the Islands of Buang and Bukid in the Dutch East Indies o The boat was surrounded by 6 vintas manned by 24 armed Moros o The Moros took all the boats cargo, attacked some of the men, and brutally violated 2 women o The Moros left the boat with holes in it for it to sink and took with them 2 women who they repeatedly violated

o o o

The Moros arrived at Maruro, also a Dutch possession where the 2 women were able to escape Lol-lo was one of the Moro marauders, he also raped one of the women Saraw was also one of the Moros

Lol-lo and Saraw returned to South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi afterwards They were arrested and were charged with the crime of piracy Their counsel filed a demurrer on the grounds that the offense was not within the jurisdiction of the Philippines Trial judge overruled the demurrer and after trial, defendants were found guilty and were sentenced to life imprisonment, to return what they stole and pay them 924 rupees

Issue: Does the Philippine courts have jurisdiction even though the crime was committed outside its territory? Are the provisions in the Penal Code still in force since the country refers to Spain Held: The Court affirmed the lower courts decision except that Lol-los was sentenced to be hung until dead Piracy is a crime against humanity and is therefore punishable in a competent tribunal of any country The jurisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits The municipal laws of the conquered territory such as affect private rights of person and property and provide for the punishment of crime as long as they are not incompatible with the new order of things or are suspended or superseded, are considered as continuing in force Therefore, whenever Spain is stated, it means US and US citezens and Filipino Citizens for Spaniards