ART 2

 Case Title: US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7

Facts:
On December 2, 1908, a steamship vessel engaged in the transport of animals named Stanford commanded by
H.N. Bull docked in the port of Manila, Philippines. It was found that said vessel from Ampieng, Formosa
carried 674 heads of cattle without providing appropriate shelter and proper suitable means for securing the
animals which resulted for most of the animals to get hurt and others to have died while in transit.

This cruelty to animals is said to be contrary to Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine Constitution. It is
however contended that cases cannot be filed because neither was it said that the court sitting where the animals
were disembarked would take jurisdiction, nor did it say about ships not licensed under Philippine laws, like the
ships involved.

Issue:
Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a foreign ship while inside the
territorial waters of the Philippines.

Held:
Yes. When the vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay, the
vessel is within territorial waters and thus, the laws of the Philippines shall apply. A crime committed on board
a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines
if the illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters - regardless of the fact
that the same conditions existed when the ship settled from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas,

In light of the above restriction, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred and
fifty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.

 Title: US v. Fowler, 1 Phil. 614

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:
In August 12, 1901, the defendants were accused of the theft of 16 champagne bottles worth 20 dollars while on
board the vessel, “Lawton”. The counsel for defendants alleged to the Court of First Instance of Manila that
they were without jurisdiction over the crime charged. Since it happened in the high seas and not in the city of
Manila or in the territory in which the jurisdiction of the court extends, they asked that the case be dismissed.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Manila has jurisdiction over the criminal case theft committed on
board while navigating on high seas on a vessel not registered in the Philippines.

Held:
No. The Philippine court has jurisdiction over the crime of theft committed on high seas on board a vessel not
registered or licensed in the Philippines. The English Rule states that such crimes are triable in our country
when crimes are committed on board a foreign vessel sailing from a foreign port and which enters the
Philippine waters. In the case at bar, the vessel Lawton was navigating the high seas at the commission of the
crime. Given the location of the vessel at the time, such act is not triable within our jurisdiction.
  Case Title: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729
Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code
Facts:
The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General, filed an appeal that urges the revocation of a demurrer
sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila presented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of having
illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while the said vessel was
anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the defendant
contended the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the
case.

Issue:
Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed aboard merchant vessels
anchored in our jurisdictional waters.

Held:
Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thus the Philippine courts have a right of
jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court said that having the opium smoked within our territorial waters
even though aboard a foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public order because it causes such drugs to
produce pernicious effects within our territory. Therefore, the demurrer is revoked and the Court ordered further
proceedings.

 Case Title: US vs Look Chow, 18 Phil 573

Subject Matter: Applicability of the provisions of Art 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:
Between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m. in August 19, 1909, the Port of Cebu and internal revenue agent of Cebu,
respectively, went aboard the steamship Erroll to inspect and search its cargo, and found two sacks containing
opium. The defendant stated freely and voluntarily that he had bought these sacks of opium in Hong Kong with
the intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that as his hold had already been
searched several times for opium he ordered two other chinamen to keep the sack. All the evidence found
properly constitutes corpus delicti.

It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it came from Hong Kong, and that it
was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in Manila and Cebu.

Issue:
Whether or not courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign vessels stationed in its port.

Held:
Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter. The mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in
these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a
crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own
nationality. However, the same rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the
Philippines, in the present case, a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon the Philippine soil, thus
committing an open violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime. Only the
court established in the said place itself has competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an
international treaty.
  Case Title: US vs Ah Sing, 36 Phil 978
Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:

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.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime of illegal importation of opium into the Philippine Islands is criminally liable in the
Philippines.

Held:

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.

ART 3