Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18924)
Procedural Posture
The defendant filed a demurrer to the information on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case. The Attorney-General appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court, urging that Philippine courts possess jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels within territorial waters.
Applicable Law
• Territorial Principle (English Rule): Crimes committed within a country’s territory—including its territorial waters—are triable by its courts.
• French Rule: Generally denies local jurisdiction over offenses on foreign merchant vessels unless public peace is threatened.
• U.S. Jurisprudence (binding in the Philippine Islands as a U.S. territory): The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, U.S. authorities; United States v. Bull; United States v. Look Chaw.
• Philippine Opium Law: Prohibits use of opium in Philippine territory; mere possession aboard a vessel in transit does not offend local statute absent consumption onshore.
• Commerce and Navigation Convention (U.S.–U.K.): Grants reciprocal commercial freedom, “subject always to the laws and statutes” of the respective territories.
Issue
Do Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try a foreign national for the act of smoking opium aboard a foreign merchant vessel anchored within Philippine territorial waters?
Court’s Analysis
- Territorial Waters and Allegiance
Under the territorial principle, once a vessel enters within three nautical miles of Philippine shores, it—and its occupants—owe temporary local allegiance and become subject to Philippine jurisdiction. Cited precedents confirm that offenses committed within territorial waters fall under local criminal law. - Distinction Between Possession and Use
The Court distinguished earlier rulings holding mere possession of opium aboard a foreign vessel in transit non-triable locally, since such possession did not produce forbidden effects on Philippine soil. By contrast, actual consumption (“use”) of opium within territorial limits directly contravenes the public order and the legislative purpose of the Opium Law. - Comity of Nations and Treaty Waiver
While comity permits exclusive jurisdiction by a vessel’s home state over onboard disorders confined to the ship alone, grave offenses affecting public peace—such as drug use—properly fall within local jurisdiction. No treaty or convention with Great Britain renounces this jurisdiction; indeed, the Commerce and Navigation Convention explicitly subjects
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-18924)
Facts
- The appellee, Wong Cheng (alias Wong Chun), was accused of illegally smoking opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa, of English nationality.
- The vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, approximately two and a half miles from the shores of the city.
- An information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila charging the offense.
Procedural History
- The defendant presented a demurrer to the information, alleging that the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the charged offense.
- The Court of First Instance of Manila sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction.
- The Attorney-General appealed the dismissal, seeking revocation of the court’s order.
Issue
- Whether the courts of the Philippine Islands have jurisdiction over a crime committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel anchored within Philippine territorial waters.
International-Law Principles on Vessel Jurisdiction
- French rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign merchant vessel may not be prosecuted in local courts unless they affect the peace and security of the territory.
- English (territorial) rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel within territorial waters are generally triable by the courts of the country in whose territory they occur.
- The Philippines, as a territory of the United States, follows the English rule and the prevailing United