Case Digest (G.R. No. 5270) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In The United States vs. H. N. Bull, G.R. No. 5270 (January 15, 1910), the appellant H. N. Bull, master of the Norwegian steamship Standard, was charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with violating Section 1 of Act No. 55, as amended by Section 1 of Act No. 275, by importing 677 head of cattle and carabaos from Ampieng, Formosa, to Manila on or about December 2, 1908, “without providing suitable means for securing said animals while in transit, so as to avoid cruelty and unnecessary suffering.” The information alleged failure to install stalls or adequate tying devices, resulting in torn nostrils, bruises, broken legs, and deaths among the animals. Bull moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, challenged the constitutionality of the statutes under the Organic Act of 1902, and denied the sufficiency of the evidence. The trial court found that the offense was committed within three-mile territorial waters, that suitable stalls existed in the industry, and that Bull kn... Case Digest (G.R. No. 5270) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Vessel
- Plaintiff-Appellee: The United States.
- Defendant-Appellant: H. N. Bull, master of the Norwegian steamship *Standard*.
- Transportation and Alleged Cruelty
- Voyage: Many months prior to December 2, 1908, *Standard* carried 677 cattle and carabaos from Ampieng, Formosa, to Manila, Philippine Islands.
- Alleged Failure: No stalls, inadequate tying means, no bedding; animals transported loose, tied by nose rings; some injured, bruised, or killed.
- Statutory Framework and Jurisdictional Allegations
- Act No. 55 (Jan. 1, 1901): Requires sufficient forage, water, and, by amendment (Act No. 275, Oct. 23, 1901), suitable means to secure animals to avoid cruelty.
- Penalty and Venue (Act No. 55 § 3): Fine of \$100–\$500; prosecutions in Court of First Instance in port of disembarkation.
- Jurisdictional Challenge: Complaint alleged offense aboard *Standard* and arrival in Manila, without stating disembarkation or Philippine registry.
Issues:
- Does the complaint state facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction?
- Was the trial court without jurisdiction under the evidence?
- Is Act No. 55, as amended by Act No. 275, unconstitutional under U.S. principles as applied?
- Is the evidence sufficient to support the conviction?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)