People vs Look Chaw

Facts:

The United States v. Look Chaw (Alias Luk Chiu), G.R. No. 5887, December 16, 1910, the Supreme Court En Banc, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.

The plaintiff-appellee was The United States; the defendant-appellant was Look Chaw (alias Luk Chiu). The first criminal complaint filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu charged the defendant with both the unlawful possession of opium and the unlawful sale of opium. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that more than one crime was charged, ordered the fiscal to separate the charges, and required a separate complaint for each offense; the fiscal complied and the present case (No. 375, Court of First Instance of Cebu; G.R. No. 5887 on the general docket) concerns only the unlawful possession charge.

At trial the Court of First Instance of Cebu found that between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m. a search was made aboard the English steamship Erroll while it was in Cebu; two sacks (Exhibits A and B) containing numerous cans of opium were discovered — one in a cabin near the saloon and another in the hold, the latter being under the defendant's control. The defendant, in the presence of various officials, admitted ownership of the sacks and stated he had purchased the opium in Hong Kong intending to sell it as contraband in Mexico (Vera Cruz). Additional cans (Exhibits C and D) were found in other parts of the vessel; Exhibit C consisted of cans located where the firemen slept and were purportedly to be retained by crew for consumption ashore only if not taken ashore, while Exhibit D was a sample allegedly purchased from the defendant by a secret service agent. The trial court struck out portions of hearsay testimony bearing on sale but otherwise allowed the evidence; the defense admitted that the exhibits contained opium and that the defendant had stated the sacks were his.

The defense moved to dismiss, contending the court lacked jurisdiction and that the facts did not constitute a crime; the trial court ruled it had jurisdiction because the crime was committed within its district (on the wharf of Cebu), convicted the defendant, and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment, a fine of P10,000 (with subsidiary imprisonment not exceeding one-third of the principal penalty in case of insolvency), costs, confiscation of...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did the Court of First Instance of Cebu have jurisdiction to try the offense charged against Look Chaw?
• Do the facts proved at trial constitute the crime of unlawful possession of opium triable in the Philippine courts?
• Were the penalties imposed by the trial court appropriate, or should th...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)