3. U.

S v Look Chaw opium on such a ship, without being used in our territory, does not bring
G.R. No. L-5887. about in this country those disastrous effects that our law contemplated
December 16, 1911 avoiding.
TOPIC: Jurisdiction
Petitioners: The United States of America  However, said courts acquire jurisdiction when the tins of opium are
Respondent: Look Chaw landed from the vessel upon Philippine soil, thus committing an open
Ponente:Arellano, CJ. violation of the laws of the land, with respect to which, as it is a violation
of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime and
FACTS: only the court established in that said place itself had competent
jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty
 Defendant Chaw was found in possession of two sacks of opium on board
the steamship Errol of English Nationality departed in Hong Kong bound
for Mexico, via the call ports of Manila and Cebu.
 He stated, freely and voluntarily that the contraband belonged to him but
prayed for the dismissal of the case on the grounds that the court has no
jurisdiction to try the same and facts therein did not constitute a crime.
 The court of First Instance of Cebu ruled that it did not lack jurisdiction in
as much as the crime had been committed within its district, on the wharf
of Cebu. Hence, the defendant appealed to Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction to try
unlawful possession of opium on a foreign vessel and unlawful sale of opium on
Philippine soil. (YES)

RULING:

 The court ruled that on the account of foreign vessel being an extension
of its own nationality, mere possession of thing of prohibited use in
Philippine Islands does not constitute a crime and therefore not triable by
the courts in the Philippines.

 Mere possession of opium (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 (in this case, the vessel is of English nationality), because that
fact alone does not constitute a breach of order. Mere possession of