Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    People vs. Wong Cheng - Case

    Uploaded by

    Mia Catan
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the trial court did have jurisdiction over a case involving a Chinese man smoking opium aboard a British merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. While some argue crimes on foreign ships should only be prosecuted if they affect territorial security, the accepted rule in the US and Philippines is that crimes committed in territorial waters fall under local jurisdiction. Smoking opium aboard the ship in Manila Bay disturbed public order in the Philippines and violated local anti-opium laws, so the case was under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was therefore reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Wong Cheng - Case

    Uploaded by

    Mia Catan
    29 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the trial court did have jurisdiction over a case involving a Chinese man smoking opium aboard a British merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. While some argue crimes on foreign ships should only be prosecuted if they affect territorial security, the accepted rule in the US and Philippines is that crimes committed in territorial waters fall under local jurisdiction. Smoking opium aboard the ship in Manila Bay disturbed public order in the Philippines and violated local anti-opium laws, so the case was under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was therefore reversed.

    Original Description:

    Criminal law 1

    Original Title

    5. People vs. Wong Cheng_case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the trial court did have jurisdiction over a case involving a Chinese man smoking opium aboard a British merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. While some argue crimes on foreign ships should only be prosecuted if they affect territorial security, the accepted rule in the US and Philippines is that crimes committed in territorial waters fall under local jurisdiction. Smoking opium aboard the ship in Manila Bay disturbed public order in the Philippines and violated local anti-opium laws, so the case was under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was therefore reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    29 views2 pages

    People vs. Wong Cheng - Case

    Uploaded by

    Mia Catan
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that the trial court did have jurisdiction over a case involving a Chinese man smoking opium aboard a British merchant vessel anchored in Manila Bay. While some argue crimes on foreign ships should only be prosecuted if they affect territorial security, the accepted rule in the US and Philippines is that crimes committed in territorial waters fall under local jurisdiction. Smoking opium aboard the ship in Manila Bay disturbed public order in the Philippines and violated local anti-opium laws, so the case was under the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The trial court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was therefore reversed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Today is Sunday, June 11, 2017

    Custom Search

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    EN BANC
    G.R. No. L-18924 October 19, 1922
    THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellant,
    vs.
    WONG CHENG (alias WONG CHUN), defendant-appellee.
    Attorney-General Villa-Real for appellant.
    Eduardo Gutierrez Repide for appellee.
    ROMUALDEZ, J.:
    In this appeal the Attorney-General urges the revocation of the order of the Court of First Instance of Manila,
    sustaining the demurrer presented by the defendant to the information that initiated this case and in which the
    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.
    The demurrer alleged lack of jurisdiction on the part of the lower court, which so held and dismissed the case.
    The question that presents itself for our consideration is whether such ruling is erroneous or not; and it will or will
    not be erroneous according as said court has or has no jurisdiction over said offense.
    The point at issue is whether the courts of the Philippines have jurisdiction over crime, like the one herein
    involved, committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdiction waters. 1awph! l. net

    There are two fundamental rules on this particular matter in connection with International Law; to wit, the 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; and the 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. Of this two rules, it is the last one that obtains in this
    jurisdiction, because at present the theories and jurisprudence prevailing in the United States on this matter are
    authority in the Philippines which is now a territory of the United States.
    In the cases of The Schooner Exchange vs. M'Faddon and Others (7 Cranch [U. S.], 116), Chief Justice Marshall
    said:
    . . . When merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and
    dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to
    degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not
    amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. . . .
    In United States vs. Bull (15 Phil., 7), this court held:
    . . . No court of the Philippine Islands had jurisdiction over an offense or crime committed on the high seas
    or within the territorial waters of any other country, but when she came within three miles of a line drawn
    from the headlands, which embrace the entrance to Manila Bay, she was within territorial waters, and a new
    set of principles became applicable. (Wheaton, International Law [Dana ed.], p. 255, note 105; Bonfils, Le
    Droit Int., secs. 490 et seq.; Latour, La Mer Ter., ch. 1.) The ship and her crew were then subject to the
    jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign subject to such limitations as have been conceded by that sovereignty
    through the proper political agency. . . .
    It is true that in certain cases the comity of nations is observed, as in Mali and Wildenhus vs. Keeper of the
    Common Jail (120 U.., 1), wherein it was said that:
    . . . The principle which governs the whole matter is this: Disorder which disturb only the peace of the ship or
    those on board are to be dealt with exclusively by the sovereignty of the home of the ship, but those which
    disturb the public peace may be suppressed, and, if need be, the offenders punished by the proper
    authorities of the local jurisdiction. It may not be easy at all times to determine which of the two jurisdictions
    a particular act of disorder belongs. Much will undoubtedly depend on the attending circumstances of the
    particular case, but all must concede that felonious homicide is a subject for the local jurisdiction, and that if
    the proper authorities are proceeding with the case in the regular way the consul has no right to interfere to
    prevent it.
    Hence in United States vs. Look Chaw (18 Phil., 573), this court held that:
    Although the mere possession of an article of prohibited use in the Philippine Islands, aboard a foreign
    vessel in transit in any local port, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of the
    Islands, such vessels being considered as an extension of its own nationality, the same rule does not apply
    when the article, the use of which is prohibited in the Islands, is landed from the vessels upon Philippine soil;

    converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com
    in such a case an open violation of the laws of the land is committed with respect to which, as it is a violation
    of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime, no court other than that established in
    the said place has jurisdiction of the offense, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.
    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. Besides, in his work "Treaties, Conventions, etc.," volume 1, page 625, Malloy
    says the following:
    There shall be between the territories of the United States of America, and all the territories of His Britanic
    Majesty in Europe, a reciprocal liberty of commerce. The inhabitants of the two countries, respectively, shall
    have liberty freely and securely to come with their ships and cargoes to all such places, ports and rivers, in
    the territories aforesaid, to which other foreigners are permitted to come, to enter into the same, and to
    remain and reside in any parts of the said territories, respectively; also to hire and occupy houses and
    warehouses for the purposes of their commerce; and, generally, the merchants and traders of each nation
    respectively shall enjoy the most complete protection and security for their commerce, but subject always to
    the laws and statutes of the two countries, respectively. (Art. 1, Commerce and Navigation Convention.)
    We have seen that the 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.
    But 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. Moreover, as the Attorney-General aptly observes:
    . . . The idea of a person smoking opium securely on board a foreign vessel at anchor in the port of Manila
    in open defiance of the local authorities, who are impotent to lay hands on him, is simply subversive of
    public order. It requires no unusual stretch of the imagination to conceive that a foreign ship may come into
    the port of Manila and allow or solicit Chinese residents to smoke opium on board.
    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. So ordered.
    Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avancea, Villamor, Ostrand and Johns, JJ., concur.

    The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

    converted by W eb2PDFConvert.com

    You might also like