Wong Cheng, 46 Phil.

729

G.R. No.L-18924 October 19, 1922

ROMUALDEZ, J.

FACTS:
appellee is accused of having
illegally smoked opium, aboard the
merchant vessel Changsa of
English nationality while said
vessel was anchored in Manila Bay
two and a half miles from the
shores of the city.
Lower court dismissed the case

ISSUE: W/N the courts of the

Philippines have jurisdiction over
crime committed aboard merchant
vessels anchored in our jurisdiction
waters

HELD: The order appealed from is

revoked and the cause ordered
remanded to the court of origin for
further proceedings in accordance
with law, without special findings
as to costs.
YES.
2 fundamental rules on this
particular matter in connection
with International Law
1.
French rule-according to
which crimes committed
aboard a foreign merchant
vessels should not be
prosecuted in the courts of the
country within whose territorial
jurisdiction they were
committed
UNLESS: their commission affects
the peace and security of the
territory
2. English rule
-based on the territorial principle
and followed in the United States
-according to which crimes
perpetrated under such
circumstances are in general
triable in the courts of the country

within territory they were

committed.
As to whether the United States
has ever consented by treaty or
otherwise to renouncing such
jurisdiction or a part thereof, we
find nothing to this effect so far as
England is concerned, to which
nation the ship where the crime in
question was committed belongs.
mere possession of opium
aboard a foreign vessel in transit
was held by this court not triable
by or courts, because it being the
primary object of our Opium Law to
protect the inhabitants of the
Philippines against the disastrous
effects entailed by the use of this
drug, its mere possession in such a
ship, without being used in our
territory, does not being about in
the said territory those effects that
our statute contemplates avoiding.
Hence such a mere possession is
not considered a disturbance of the
public order.
to smoke opium within our
territorial limits, even though
aboard a foreign merchant ship, is
certainly a breach of the public
order here established, because it
causes such drug to produce its
pernicious effects within our
territory. It seriously contravenes
the purpose that our Legislature
has in mind in enacting the
aforesaid repressive statute.

Look Chaw, 18 Phil. 573

G.R. No.L-5887. December 16, 1910.
ARELLANO, C. J.
Lesson: Crimes NOT involving a breach of
public order committed on board a public
vessel is NOT triable by our courts

Laws Applicable: Art. 2 RPC, Opium Law

HELD: YES. Modified by reducing the

imprisonment and the fine imposed to

FACTS:
Upon arrival of steamship Erroll of

six months and P1,000

GR: mere possession of a thing of

English nationality, that it came from

prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a

Hongkong, and that it was bound for

foreign vessel in transit, in any of their

Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and

ports, does NOT constitute a crime

Cebu, 2 sacks of opium where found

triable by the courts of this country, on

during the inspection and search of the

account of such vessel being considered

cargo.

as an extension of its own nationality

o Smaller sack of opium on the cabin near

the saloon

EX: when the article, whose use is

prohibited within the Philippine Islands,

o larger sack in the hold

in the present case a can of opium, is

o Later on, there was also 4 cans of opium

landed from the vessel upon Philippine

found on the part of the ship where the

soil, thus committing an open violation

firemen habitually sleep

of the laws of the land with respect to

the firemen and crew of foreign vessels,

which, as it is a violation of the penal

pursuant to the instructions he had from

law in force at the place of the

the Manila custom-house, were

commission of the crime, only the court

permitted to retain certain amounts of

established in that said place itself had

opium, always provided it should not be

competent jurisdiction, in the absence of

taken shore so it was returned

an agreement under an international

2 charges were filed against Look Chaw

treaty.

at the Court of First Instance of Cebu:

o unlawful possession of opium
o unlawful sale of opium

CASE DIGEST: US vs Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978

Look Chaw admitted that he had bought

these sacks of opium, in Hongkong with

Case Title: US vs Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978

the intention of selling them as

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of

the Revised Penal Code

contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz, and

that, as his hold had already been
searched several times for opium, he

Facts:

ordered two other Chinamen to keep the

sack.

Ah Sing is a fireman at the steamship Shun

Chang, a foreign vessel which arrived in the
port of Cebu from Saigon. He bought 8 cans of
opium in Saigon, brought them on board and
had them in his possession during the said trip.
The 8 cans of opium were found in the ashes
below the boiler of the steamer's engine by
authorities who made a search upon anchoring
on the port of Cebu. The defendant confessed
that he was the owner of the opium and that
he had purchased it in Saigon. He dis 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.

The court ruled that it did not lack

jurisdiction, inasmuch as the crime had
been committed within its district, on
the wharf of Cebu. The court sentenced
him to5 years imprisonment, to pay a
fine of P10,000, with additional
subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvencyxxx It further ordered the
confiscation, in favor of the Insular
Government.

Issue:

ISSUE: W/N the Philippine court has

jurisdiction.

Whether or not the crime of illegal importation

of opium into the Philippine Islands is criminally

liable in the Philippines.

Balagtas but a peaceful and innocent

Held:

paramour.

citizen named Serapio Tecson, Irene's

According to Appellant Galanta, when he

Yes. As stated in the Opium Law, we expressly

hold that any person who unlawfully imports or
brings any prohibited drug into the Philippine
Islands, when the prohibited drug is found
under this person's control on a vessel which
has come direct from a foreign country and is
within the jurisdiction limits of the Philippines,
is guilty of the crime of illegal importation of
opium, unless contrary circumstances exist or
the defense proves otherwise.

and chief of police Oanis arrived at the

house, the latter asked Brigida where
Irene's room was. Brigida indicated the
place, and upon further inquiry as to the
whereabouts of Anselmo Balagtas, she
said that he too was sleeping in the
same room.
ISSUE: W/N they may, upon such fact,
be held responsible for the death thus
caused to Tecson

Oanis, 74 Phil. 257

G.R. No.L-47722 July 27, 1943

HELD: appellants are hereby declared

MORAN, J.

guilty of murder with the mitigating

Lesson applicable: mitigating

circumstance

circumstances

YES.
ignorantia facti excusat, but this applies
only when the mistake is committed

FACTS:

without fault or carelessness

Captain Godofredo Monsod, Constabulary

Provincial Inspector at Cabanatuan,

appellants found no circumstances

Nueva Ecija, received from Major Guido

whatsoever which would press them to

a telegram of the following tenor:

immediate action. The person in the

"Information received escaped convict

room being then asleep, appellants had

Anselmo Balagtas with bailarina and

ample time and opportunity to ascertain

Irene in Cabanatuan get him dead or

his identity without hazard to

alive." Captain Monsod accordingly

themselves, and could even effect a

called for his first sergeant and asked

bloodless arrest if any reasonable effort

that he be given four men.

to that end had been made, as the

victim was unarmed.

The same instruction was given to the

chief of police Oanis who was likewise

"No unnecessary or unreasonable force

shall be used in making an arrest, and

called by the Provincial Inspector.

the person arrested shall not be subject

Defendants Oanis and Galanta then went

to the room of Irene, and an seeing a

to any greater restraint than is

man sleeping with his back towards the

necessary for his detention."

door where they were, simultaneously or

a peace officer cannot claim exemption

successively fired at him with their .32

from criminal liability if he uses

and .45 caliber revolvers. Awakened by

unnecessary force or violence in making

the gunshots, Irene saw her paramour

an arrest

already wounded, and looking at the

The crime committed by appellants is not

door where the shots came, she saw the

merely criminal negligence, the killing

defendants still firing at him. Shocked by

being intentional and not accidental. In

the entire scene. Irene fainted; it turned

criminal negligence, the injury caused to

out later that the person shot and killed

another should be unintentional, it being

was not the notorious criminal Anselmo

simply the incident of another act

performed without malice.
3

you enter the room, I will kill you. He was struck

just above the knee by the edge of the chair and
he thought that the blow had been inflicted by
the person who had forced the door open, whom
he supposed to be a burglar. Seizing a common
kitchen knife which he kept under his pillow, the
defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who, it
afterwards turned out, was his roommate. The
roommate eventually died.

2 requisites in order that the

circumstance may be taken as a
justifying one:
1.

offender acted in the

performance of a duty or in the
lawful exercise of a right-present

2.

injury or offense committed be

the necessary consequence of the
due performance of such duty or
the lawful exercise of such right or

ISSUE:
Whether or not Ah Chong is liable for the death
of his roommate.

office.-not present
According to article 69 of the Revised
Penal Code, the penalty lower by 1 or 2

HELD:
NO. Ah Chong was acquitted.

degrees than that prescribed by law

shall, in such case, be imposed.

RATIO:
The decision of the lower court was reversed.
The case was a mistake of fact resulting to
self-defense justified under Article 11(1) of the
Revised Penal Code where there is (1) unlawful
aggression, (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it, and
(3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of
the person defending himself. Had the deceased
be a robber as he thought, his actions would not
be criminally liable.
Some maxims cited:

U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15

Phil. 488)
27JUL
FACTS:
The defendant, Ah Chong, was employed as a
cook at Officers quarters. On the night, the
defendant, who had received for the night, was
suddenly awakened by some trying to force
open the door of the room. He sat up in bed and
called out twice, Who is there? He heard no
answer and was convinced by the noise at the
door that it was being pushed open by someone
bent upon forcing his way into the room. The
defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber
or a thief, leaped to his feet and called out: If

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, the act
itself does not make man guilty unless his
intention were so;
Actus me incito factus non est meus actus, an
act done by me against my will is not my act;