BULL vs.

US Facts: Bull, then captain of the steamship Standard, wilfully, unlawfully, and wrongfully carry or transport 677 cattle and carabaos from the port of Ampieng, Formosa to the port of Manila without providing suitable means for securing the said animals while in transit. Condition of the animals were then said to be of the following: - Tied by means of rings in their noses - Tossed about upon decks - Cruelly wounded/bruised/killed All were found to be contrary to the provision of Act nos. 55 and 275 of the Philippine Commission Issues: 1.) Whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the offense committed? (Since it is registered as a Norwegian vessel and was conceded as not registered or licensed in the Philippine Islands) 2.) Whether or not Act. No 55 and the amendment thereto are unconstitutional? (The constitutionality of said acts were contended and argued upon that it was in violation of Article! section 3 of the US constitution) 3.) Whether a certain method of handling the animals is suitable can be left to the judgement of the Captain of the vessel? (It is a question which must be determined by the court from evidence.) Held: 1.) - Within coming 3 miles of a line drawn from the headlands which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, the ship and her crew were then the subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippine Islands. The completed forbidden act was done within American waters, and the court therefor had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the offense and the person of the offender. - as to the issue of the vessel being registered as a Norwegian vessel, the Supreme Court of the US maintained that merchant vessels subject themselves to the laws which govern the ports they visit, unless otherwise provided by treaty. Although a treaty exists between the US and Norway, the treaty does not deprive the local court of jurisdiction over the offense. - as to the issue of the complaint being defective because it does not allege the animals were disembarked at the port of Manila. The court found that the disembarkation of the animals was not necessary and that the statute confers jurisdiction upon the court sitting at the port into which the animals were brought. 2.) The Philippines was not incorporated into the Union and as such is not under the US constitution. Instead it is under an organic law which serves for the same purpose. Acts in question were not repealed by the congress, and as such, is still in effect. 3.) Method of handling cattle cannot be left to captain. Bull believed that letting them loose in the ship was better practice. Another captain believed the same. BUT this was against law of nature. Injury to one may cause panic to others.

PEOPLE vs. WONG CHENG Facts: Wong Cheng is accused of having illegally smoked opium aboard the Changsa, a merchant vessel of English nationality, while the vessel was anchored two and a half miles from the shores of Manila Bay. Issues: Whether or not the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over a crime committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional waters? (Defendant presented an objection that alleges lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court) Held: Order from the Court of the First Instance was revoked and the case remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. - The court upheld that crimes committed in a merchant vessel are, generally, triable in the courts of the country within whose territory they were committed, taking on from the English rule in dealing with this matter. It was also established that there was no treaty or otherwise made by the US with England in renouncing such jurisdiction or a part thereof. - The court also upheld that mere possession of opium in a foreign vessel does not constitute a crime triable by courts in the Philippines. But to smoke opium within our territorial limits is a breach of public order since the smoking the drug produces its pernicious effects within our territory and as such is triable by the courts in the Philippines. PEOPLE vs. LOOK CHAW Facts: Several cans of opium and two sacks containing cans of opium were found in a steamship Errol, a ship of English nationality, when a search was done of the ship while it was at Cebu. The defendant admitted that cans of opium were his and he had them in his possession. It was also stated by the defendant that he tried to sell the opium for 16 pesos a can and he had a contract to sell an amount with the value of 500 pesos. The defendant was charged with the unlawful possession of opium and the unlawful sale of opium. The cause for this case concerns only the unlawful possession of opium. Issues: Whether or not the court has the jurisdiction to try the defendant against the case charge against him? (Erroll was of English Nationality and therefore under the jurisdiction of the England) Held: The court upheld the earlier decision but modified and reduced the penalty imposed on the defendant. The mere possession of opium (or anything of prohibited use) in the Philippines aboard a foreign vessel in transit in any port, does not constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, because the foreign vessel is considered an extension of its nationality. (Erroll is therefore under the jurisdiction of the English) however, if the prohibited item were to have touched Philippine soil, there would have been a violation of the penal law in force.

PEOPLE vs. AH SING Fact: The defendant, Ah Sing, is a subject of China employed as a fireman on a steamship, namely Shun Chang. The steamship is a foreign steamer which arrived at the port of Cebu on April 25, 1917, after a voyage direct from the port of Saigon. The defendant bought 8 cans of opium in Saigon, brought them on board the steamship and had them in his possession during the trip from Saigon to Cebu. When the steamer anchored in the port of Cebu, the authorities on making the search found the cans of opium hidden in the ashes below the boiler of the steamer's engine. The defendant confessed that he was the owner of the opium and that he had purchased it in Saigon. He did not confess, however, as to his purpose in buying the opium. He did not say that it was his intention to import the prohibited drug and no evidence was given, as well, to prove that matter. Issue: Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands has been proven? Held: Yes. It is the responsibility of the government to prove that the vessel from which the drug discharged came into Philippine waters from a foreign country with the drug on board. In this case, it is to be noted that in Section 4 of Act No. 2381 begins, Any person who shall unlawfully import or bring any prohibited drug into the Philippine Islands1The mere act of going into a port, without breaking bulk, is prima facie2 evidence of importation. The importation is not the making entry of goods at the customhouse, but merely the bringing them into the port, and the importation is complete before the entry to the custom house. Moreover, possession for personal use is unlikely, judging from the size of the amount brought.